Because the United States government wants to OWN and OPERATE that particular service. Can you even attempt to begin to think for yourself, man?

Some people want to own and fly their own private jets. Some people want to build their own rockets. The US government want to control the world and the people who reside on it. Commercial and civilian space flight and reusable launch vehicles are not part of that particular paradigm which most authoritarian regimes pursue. You can come to your own conclusions.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, you can’t. When you think you can, do let us know, ok?

First of all, what’s wrong with buying flights on the Soyuz from the Russians?

I fly on airbuses and international carriers all the time. Nothing new there.

And yet when the USAF tried to buy Airbuses as tankers Congress threw a fit, even though they would be built mostly in the U.S. I wonder why…

As for the government being interested in routine commercial access to space, why should they be? What will space tourism do for the U.S. government, other then create another security headache. The government concern is military and NASA space access. Just as it is building military and research aircraft, not commercial ones.

Good act, and good cover for not having any evidence to show that fixed price contracts are some magical solution to space access. but no one but your space libertarian friends are buying it. But then they will buy any New Space hype.

Fixed priced contracts are not some magical solution to CATS. The vehicles built under it to date are no more cost effective then those built under cost plus. The Pegasus and Taurus showed that and so will the Falcon once it gets operational. And you aren’t going to make any breakthroughs on one. Not on the order needed for a true RLV.

As for Al, I told him my agenda. I am still looking to see his.

You can imagine all kinds of things, but that would be fantasy, not reality.

First of all, what’s wrong with buying flights on the Soyuz from the Russians?

I fly on airbuses and international carriers all the time. Nothing new there.

Second, if the United States Government was truly interested in closing or reducing the GAP, then they would be putting small lightweight capsules on both of our EELVs, right now. These launch vehicles are clearly capable of reaching the ISS, with an intact upper stage and engine, which is equivalent to your so called TSTO space craft. This can be easily done RIGHT NOW.

This government, the Bush Administration, clearly in NOT INTERESTED in routine commercial and civilian spaceflight in any way shape or form.

Finally, in terms of second generation reusable spacecraft designs which you so covet, the United States government is in an admirable position of already having three such spacecraft, powered by 14 such engines (SSME) and could easily transition to a simple ground started SSME powered reusablity demonstrator in the form of a conventional rocket. The assets this administration has, including the ISS, was and still is, astonishing. The fact that they so thoroughly screwed up what was just a straighforward extrapolation of existing capabilities, outlines an intrinsic incompetence never before seen in the entire history of the United States of America.

So, what’s your excuse? My excuse was I was out of the country at the time.

Just what is so mystical about reaching space that you think is only possible via cost-plus contracts? Oh, and by the way, SpaceShipOne, which did reach space, wasn’t built on a cost-plus contract (nor was Pegasus…).

Also, I not that you haven’t answered any of Al’s legitimate questions.

A question: Why do you continue to beclown yourself at a widely-read space web site? Are you simply a glutton for punishment?

You know, you may think that you’re fooling some people with this BS, but it doesn’t fool me, or any other intelligent readers of this site. You had no idea how Pegasus was funded until I called you on it. You have hilariously exposed yourself as an ignorant fool on the history of space transportation development. Why should we take you seriously at all?

My agenda is to see the U.S. stay the leader in space. And that won’t happened if we are sending astronauts up as spam in a can, regardless if the can is supplied by a “capitalist” New Space corporation or by a “socialist” old space one. The U.S. needs a TSTO Shuttle and the only way to get one will be the old fashion way of a cost-plus contract so the technology is able to be forced forward.

No, the first generation TSTO will probably not be economical, but neither that the P-59 any smashing success.

It’s the second generation one that will create the cost breakthrough once the first generation one shows its possible to do it. The P-80 benefited from the lessons of the P-59 and was a classic.

But you won’t get that second generation one without building the first generation vehicle. And you won’t get it waiting for private enterprise to retire the risk. You only will get it by spending the money to build it.

Look at the 20 years wasted since Challenger with experimental private spacecraft and experimental funding models. Imagine if that had simply been applied to building a TSTO to replace the Shuttle in the early 1990’s. The height of stupidity is advocating the same ideas for 20 years that haven’t worked and expect that they will somehow, magically, work this time around.

That is my agenda now that I am retired. And no, there is no profit in it for me, just the satisfaction of seeing the U.S.A. stay number 1 in space instead of begging rides on thr Soyuz.

Now, what is YOUR agenda and why are you supporting the New Space hype? Are you working for one of the New Space firms?

I know exactly how Pegasus was funded which is why I am curious why you think fixed based contracts are the answer. It was also why I included it, to see if you would pick up on it and use it as a poster child for the superiority of fixed priced contracts

Pegasus was funded by a DARPA contract that paid roughly $36 million a launch for five launches, just like COTS. Since New Space hype and serial failures had not yet poisoned the investor perception (and created a giggle factor…) for entrepreneurial space firms Orbital Science was able to easily raise the money and build it in only three years. And quickly go to an nice IPO in 1990.

However Pegasus is also one of the more expensive ways to get a half of ton into orbit. That is why I find it so funny that you think that fixed priced contracts are some magic bullet that will produce low cost space access. If anything it will just stall the development of innovative solutions because firms will not want to take technical risks. The more technical risk, the more difficult it is to estimate your costs and the less attractive a fixed price contract is to a rational business firm. That is one driven by markets and investors, not philosophy.

Look at SpaceX Falcon 9. What is radical about it? n standard expendable launch vehicle with a 1960’s era capsule. Ditto for the other COTS entry, Orbital Science. Nothing innovative or cheap about them.

At $100 million a flight to ISS the Falcon 9/Dragon costs more then the Soyuz. Given a stated cargo payload of 2500 kg that is $40,000//kg or $88.000 lb. Some cost breakthrough.

I expect the cost figures for the Orbital Science won’t be much better.

So where is the great price breakthrough for the American taxpayers from fixed priced contract?

RLV and TSTO will required technical risk, and the firms capable of doing will require some assurance of a return on their investment. That is why cost-plus contracting is used for funding new rockets that are innovative, so firms are willing to be innovative.

Also Alan Boyle did not note in his hype piece it only marked the birth of private manned spaceflight, even the title stated “PRIVATE SPACE AGE TURNS 4” doesn’t quality it. But just go to any New Space event and they act like no one ever built and launched a private rocket before. Orbital Science is not considered a New Space company, but an Old Space one…

The only thing NEW about New Space is the Hype.