Once the Falcon 9 is flying, and Once the cargo version of the Dragon has docked with the ISS would be the logical time to consider it. But for now it is premature. And not something you want to make your plans on.

In 2000, NASA had no need for resupply and let the comsat companies fund new launch vehicles instead of the US Gov’t.

NASA would have spent more money that it could have saved with the “additional” competition.

Beal could have on ramped to the NASA NLS contract, if he continued and succeeded. But he chose to use NASA as a scapegoat, when his own decisions were the issue

Again, “use of space” is not space launch

If someone does not have a nickel to their name and says I wanna build rockets give me some money and someone willing to invest 200 million of their own money is NOT the same thing.

“that’s not NASA’s job” .. NASA’s job is to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space” [Source: Title I, Section 102 c)

Does having MORE launch companies competing for contracts raise or lower launch costs?

Wrong. That is not NASA’s job. NASA had no need for Beal’s vehicle, therefore no need to fund it. It doesn’t just throw money at every Joe’s Rocket Company.

Also your are wrong with ““seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space””

Funding launch vehicles is not “commercial use of space”

Beal becomes successful, it would ENCOURAGE MORE people to try an do something in space.

Beal becomes a failure, it would ENCOURAGE more people to NOT try and do something in space.

Nasa’s mandate is to do those things that ENCOURAGES commerical ventures in space. EVERY success story Nasa

I said “Beal could have been as dumb as a red brick but did NASA want Beal to succeed or not.”

The point I was trying to make is that with a 16 billion dollar budget NASA has enough wiggle room and has the talent within the agency to overcome any shortfall a potetial company has. They can do this by putting forth milestones, contracts and funding to ensure a company becomes successful IF that is what NASA truely wants.

Nasa HAD an individual willing to spend MILLIONS of his own money on a space venture. How many individuals, at any one time, does NASA have willing to spend their fortune on a space venture?

So here comes joe blow banker with a big check book and willing to spend it and what did NASA do to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space”? They DIDNT have to seek OR encourage this POTENTIAL commercial space company. Did they maximize this potential to the fullest extent possible? In MY opinion they did not, they could have offered funded milestones and contracts to put him on a path of success. THAT is their mandate.

Beal was targeting the LEO comsat market with his rocket. A COMMERCIAL launch market aready served by a number of COMMERCIAL launch systems. He was unable to close his business case through a series of VERY poor decisions and failed. Period.

Why would NASA, which had no need for a LEO comsat system have been forced to subsidize him? Especially when other commercial launch alternatives, domestic and foreign (EELV, Ariane 5, Sea Launch, Proton) were already available or under development at the time for launching COMMERCIAL LEO comsats?