As for the X-Prize, the Divinci Project was on SS1′s heals but since Burt won it no incentive to get it done. And these guys were a canadian group. They had a more friendly climate to get the needed permits. Burt’s company has been around since the 80′s they knew the red tape so was able to be persistant in getting certified. Since then the laws have been relaxed for suboribital flight a,d precedence has been put down to make it easier to liscense oribtal flights.

I remember the 90′s that way too, but i also looked to why they failed. It wasn’t techincal reasons, it was political.

Governments will never reduce the cost to LEO. Its just not in there nature to be effcient. What they can do is supply a market so the private sector has incentive to lower the costs to orbit to increase there profit. With Cost plus all its does is ensure that the job gets done, not thats its done effciently. Luckily it does appear that fixed cost contracts are in NASA’s future.

Getting into LEO is, in the long term, going to be the most expensive part of Space Development. It will only be through compeating launch vehicals made by different companies will the technical cost to get LEO will go down. And it will be only high volume flights with rock solid proven safety record will the economic price to LEO will fall.

Kistler, t/Space, SpaceX all have a good chance of helping the first part. But its up to the Government and NASA to secure a market so there are enough flights initially to help the second part. Its that second part that costs more then the first part.

But we can’t wait for the prices to fall to develop the Moon/Mars/Asteroids. And to do that we need NASA. Not in the part they do all the work but in they way they lease equipment from the private sector so the private sector can then use the equipment after NASA is done. (Yeah I know, I’m parroting t/Space, but its such a good idea)

Back it 1998-1999 I expected to see numerous groups try for the X-prize and many leave holes in the desert. But there was only one real test which won it. Looking at the result of the X-prize shows that space is expensive and there are no cheap ways around, at least none we have thought of so far.

Ther real problem now with reducing government launch costs is space is a jobs program and to cut costs is to cut jobs. We need to get space to a point where it justifies itself. Unfortunately most NASA stuff isn’t justifiable and the military side we can’t talk about.

Sticky question that. Goes back to the apollo/mercury era. Where there were no experts in the aerospace industry, so a bunch of startups or pre exsisting companies started in on the field. Some had aeronautical experience, others did not. There was competetion, and it was good. It spurred innovation, helpd keep prices low. Over the years these companies merged and got bought out until 90% of them became a part of Boeing or Lockheed. As this Duopoly was evolving, Lobbyists pursued congress to make it so it was tough for new companies to enter the field. During the early 90′s to help reduce the costs (at least thats what they said) NASA hired a contractor (United Shuttle Alliance) to operate the shuttle. It so happens today this Contractor is owned equally by both Lockheed and Boeing. So they had a monolopy on LEO and in monopolies there is no incentive to drive down costs.

As to were new startups are at, well untill recently the laws put on the books basicaly shut the door on any new companies trying to entr the market. Recently new legislation has passed that is begining to open the door. And also Mike Griffin is more commercial friendly and is being Nicer to these startups, and i expect an interesting annoucments along those lines this october.

Also it was tough for the new startups in the 80′s and 90′s to get money. Venture captilist always seemed to have a uncle or buddy in NASA. and NASA had a “not invented here” mentality which then the buddies told the venture capitalist. “If it were possible we would already be doing it.” a good book that explained Nasa’s underhandedness in detail is Lost in Space by Greg Klerkx.

So in short, the providers were all but barred from the launch pad until recently.

I have been hearing now for decades how use of LEO will drive down launch cost and make the Moon affordable. Well it hasn’t happened and it is highly unlikely to happen now. None of these possible suppliers has gotten to LEO with anything, why should we wait around for them.

What happened to the wonders of space tourism which was going to allow suffient volume to drive down prices.

Launching a few hand-fulls military and commercial satellites a year does not a commercial launch industry make. At best, any lunar base will not be a market for a decade or more, especially if they go for an HLLV. That pushes the kind of large market that could drive dramatic improvements in launch prices far over the horizon. In that future, we _may_ deploy a lunar base with HLLVs (though, as I’ve expressed, I have my doubts), but it won’t be a market for SpaceX, et al. Near-term logistics costs will (by definition) be much higher for a lunar base than they are for a LEO base. Getting supplies commercially to the moon is a much higher leap than getting them into LEO; if you don’t have the Space Station in between, it will be much harder for small companies to make that leap.

To put it another way, with a Space Station, SpaceX and company can supply it, make money, then use the profits to develop lunar transportation. Without the SS, the entreprenures to raise all the money to develop lunar transportation up front. My prediction is that they won’t be able to do it.

We may get transportation to the moon, but it won’t be commercial and it won’t be cheap. By trying to take too big a leap, you push development of a trading economy much farther into the future.

– Donald

As long as we have a space station a moonbase will remain distant.

I don’t except the space station to be funtional in 2010 let alone beyond. If I were a commercial launch provider I would not have a business plan which is highly dependent on the station.

– Donald

I’ve never said (in seriousness at least) that ISS was “totally” useless, just that it is far from being worth 100 plus billion. The US would have had, I believe, a better cheaper station if we had done Space Station Freedom at ~26 degrees inclination with ESA, Japan and Canada as partners.

Also, I disagree with Greg about the likely disposition of the Space Station. Even if we follow through in leaving the project circa 2015 (which I think highly unlikely), for geopolitical and financial reasons the Russians and Europeans will keep the project going at least in some form. Nobody is going to simply abandon the project, even if they should.

And, I still disagree with you about the _total_ uselessness of the Space Station. But, I’ve already said that so I’m not going to repeat it now.

– Donald