Despite your equating my beliefs with communism (how bizarre!), my arguments are not ideologically based. They are fact based, whereas yours are based on wishful thinking. And you’re right on one thing (the only thing, as far as I can tell)–we will see in the fullness of time.

Note the EXACT wording of the statement.

The Lynx 1-class rocket plane is focused more on the passenger space travel market, Greason said. The AFRL funding is intended to be matched by a larger amount of private investment, he said.

The Lynx 1. That allows the possibility of a Lynx 1b or Lynx 2 for military use without making this statement false.

Also note – The AFRL funding is INTENDED to be matched So this is also not a false statement IF the private funding doesn’t emerge, as is common in New Space firms not funded by billionaires, and XCor ends up being dependent on USAF contracts for building the Lynx.

In short all Gleason talks about is their HOPES for Lynx 1, nothing more as you are reading into it.

I may intend to win the lottery tomorrow, but that is not a statement of fact nor is it a lie. It just means I am buying a lottery ticket with a lot of high hopes

A CEO must be careful in what they say in public about their firm. If they aren’t then they may get into legal trouble over those statements. That is a reality in the business world. That is why few CEO’s blog, or at least Blog under their own name. Its also clear you have never been one, not for a real firm with investors or you would have recognized the carefully worded structure of his statements. There is nothing false in those statements that are in conflict with my predictions based on long experience in the business side of the aerospace industry.

Clearly your libertarian ideological dogmatism is getting in the way of you seeing the facts about “New Space” firms and their financing.

Taking Gleason’s statements as proof of your position and claiming SpaceX is not a government contractor is clear proof of your libertarian dogmatism impacting your perception of the world.

Just like the Conquest of Space was seen by the communists as symbolic of the superiority of their doctrine over the West, until the West proved its blended Capitalism model superior many libertarians like yourself see the Conquest of Space by “New Space” as symbolic of superiority of the doctrine over the blended Capitalism that has been the basis of the Western space success.

And like the communist ideologues you will not accept facts (like SpaceX contractor status or the dependence of New Space on government contracting, that conflicts with your beliefs in libertarian economic philosophy. So any logical debate with you based on facts is as much a waste of time as debating with a communist over the role of corporations in economic development.

I stand by my predictions. When and IF Lynx flies it will be because of government funding covering a majority of its costs. You believe differently. In a year or so we will see who is right and who clearly understand the reality of financing space ventures.

You may now continue your ideological based arguments in response. I will not waste my time responding to them further. The future will prove who was right.

So, just to be clear, you are calling him a liar?

Even if there eventually do turn out to be further contracts with the Air Force for Lynx, the fact remains that the majority of the funding is private, as I’ve been saying all along, and you’ve been steadfastly (and mistakenly, and cluelessly) denying.

And you didn’t know that legally SpaceX was a government contractor? Or were you just trying to spin their contractor status into something its wasn’t to prove a point? Kinda like Clinton not inhaling?

Unfortunately the people who award the contract are not the people who actually implement it on the procurement side, so there is always the argument.

If that is the case then their cost proposal was poorly worded. That is again is where traditional space firms have more experience then New Spacers.

And Gleason’s comments are exactly what he needs to say to support he commercial strategy plan for their SBIR Phase II and stay kosher with the SEC. I would expect nothing less.

We will see by the end ot the year who is right when XCor announces furthr contracts with the USAF for Lynx.

The Lynx 1-class rocket plane is focused more on the passenger space travel market, Greason said. The AFRL funding is intended to be matched by a larger amount of private investment, he said.

The government money “gives us some added confidence and belief that we’re on the right track,” Greason said.

So, “Anon,” are you calling Jeff Greason a liar? If so, again, one can see why you would post anonymously.

They did so. Unfortunately the people who award the contract are not the people who actually implement it on the procurement side, so there is always the argument.

What XCor is likely negotiating is the details of commercialization strategy and the requirements for a SBIR Phase III follow-on, the most likely things for them to negotiate on a SBIR Phase II.

Again, you are talking completely through your hat. You are completely clueless as to what is going on in that negotiation, and you demonstrate it with every “guess,” and “prediction,” and “expectation.” I, on the other hand, have an NDA with XCOR.

I am very familiar with how this industry works. I’ve been working in it for almost three decades, and consulting in it for half of that.

Even assuming that XCOR is seeking a Phase III (there is no reason to think that they are, since they have adequate private funding), it is not necessary, or even desirable to negotiate that during Phase II, which would hold up progress, since the decision won’t be made until progress has been made on Phase II.

You are the one that has no clue as to how government contracting works. The fact that you claimed both SpaceX and XCor are not government contractors when they meet all the tests for government contracting was proof of that. As for your statements on Lynx SBIR funding.:

The reason that XCor is still negotiating their Phase II is not because they’re trying to get additional Air Force funding, but because they are having to get the Air Force to agree to a fixed-price contract, a concept with which their procurement people are utterly unfamiliar.

Firms submitting their SBIR Phase II must specify in their cost proposal section if its fixed price or cost plus fixed fee contract. Period. There is nothing to negotiate. It had to be specified in their proposal and that will be how the USAF awards it. And if they are going for the full amount then they likely have specified a fixed price. Its not something that the USAF would have a problem understanding as they do fixed price contracts for many goods. All they need to do is follow the FAR and SBIR on it.

That the USAF ONLY does cost-plus contracts for space is one of the urban myths that New Space spreads. And that the USAF contracting officers would not know how to handle a fixed-price SBIR is an insult to them.

The reason traditional aerospace firms push for cost-plus is because they have been burned in the past on fixed price contracts and learned to avoid them in areas of new technology. The New Space firms will learn this same lesson, and the value of termination fees, after they have been burned a time or two. Hopefully their firms will survive the learning curve.

What XCor is likely negotiating is the details of commercialization strategy and the requirements for a SBIR Phase III follow-on, the most likely things for them to negotiate on a SBIR Phase II. Everything else needed to be spelled out in the proposal. A SBIR Phase III 1 to 4 match for the SBIR Phase II funds which would go a long way towards funding the Lynx. But clearly you have no knowledge of how SBIR or FAR work.

Really, you need to stop drinking the New Space Kool-Aid. Private funded spaceflight, ala Libertarian belief system, is a nice dream, but this is the real world we are talking about, not a Heinlien novel. The New Space survivors will be the firms like SpaceX and Xcor that learn to play the game, not the individuals like you that refuse to acknowlede how the industry work and try to spun it to fit your beliefs.

Your “prediction” is an ignorant guess, and completely baseless. The Air Force is buying operability and flight test data from XCOR. Nothing more, nothing less. The vast majority of the development will be privately funded.

When all is said and done I expect most of the Lynx development costs will be covered by USAF funding.

As someone familiar with the situation in general with SBIRs, and with this particular one, your expectation is entirely nonsensical. An SBIR Phase II is limited to $750K. Period. XCOR’s Phase II proposal (as are all Phase II proposals) was premised on leveraging the Phase II funding to get additional private funding, because a primary purpose of the SBIR program is to commercialize the technology. That was the stated goal of this SBIR topic in particular.

The reason that XCOR is still negotiating their Phase II is not because they’re trying to get additional Air Force funding, but because they are having to get the Air Force to agree to a fixed-price contract, a concept with which their procurement people are utterly unfamiliar.

I will be blunt. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and are indulging in wishful thinking to affirm your ignorant prejudices. Why you fear so much the notion of privately-funded space projects that you will publicly indulge in such a willful denial of reality, I’ll leave to your shrink, if you have one. I do understand, though, why you would express such foolish opinions anonymously.