1. Your blog is not just biased but just plainly wrong

2. Again you are wrong/ Do some research.
a. The concern about SRMs is not air pollution but in ground and water from the production and perchlorates.
b same argument is valid and more applicable to hydrocarbon rockets. “insignificant– relative to the amount of atmospheric carbon produced from private industry and even by nature itself.”
3. you are wrong. Boeing and LM market the EELV to other spacecraft including each other.

Except for that whole launching a 10 tonne vehicle to orbit on the first attempt thing.

1. Writing a science blog is about presenting your scientific opinions. The fact that you think my blog is biased strongly suggest that it is you whose actually biased.

2. My article focused on the most potentially dangerous environmental problem of our time (global warming). Some anonymous individual, however, did complain about other pollution from solid rocket boosters which I pointed out is– insignificant– relative to the amount of atmospheric chlorine produced from private industry and even by nature itself. So you’re clearly wrong on this point!

3. I believe that Boeing and Lockheed still retain the right to market their spacecraft to the ULA and even beyond the ULA. But if I am wrong on this point, I stand corrected.

I don’t like “science” blogs that blatantly wrong and have wrong information and have links to it in other sites. Unknowning people might think you have a clue and they will get the wrong ideas. I will continue to call you out every time you post incorrect statements.

Additionally, your blog is not a science blog, it is a highly bias opinion piece. References don’t mean squat if you also include unsubstantiated and incorrect information which your blog reeks of. All your points about various vehicle’s environmental impacts are wrong and misleading. Furthermore, the term “green” is not just limited to carbon emissions, it is includes all pollution, which means SRM’s are the worst of all existing propulsion systems. Also a compliment from one of the designers is meaningless since they are not a disinterested party.

Here is more proof that you don’t know what you are talking about.

“ULA uses vehicles produced by both Boeing and Lockheed”:

This wrong on many points.
a. ULA produce the vehicles.
b. ULA is no longer Boeing or LM, it is a separate company that only exists to produce EELV’s
c. It is both Boeing and Lockheed that uses vehicles produced by ULA
d. As part of the formation of ULA, Boeing and LM can not design and operate vehicles that compete with ULA vehicles.

Anything I post on my blog is heavily referenced. One of the Boeing engineers who proposed the concept actually sent me an email complimenting me on my blog. But if you don’t like a science blog that actually references what it writes, then don’t visit it!

The inline crew launch vehicle without the SRBs is Boeing’s concept and the ULA uses vehicles produced by both Boeing and Lockheed.

That is not true. NSF may host a Direct forum but it does not advocate any specific vehicle. You posts were deleted because
a. They were on the wrong thread
b. They were full of disinformation like your blog

On another note, the inline vehicle without SRB’s will never be built.
1. NASA wants more performance and hence SRB’s are required
2. NASA can use existing vehicles for a CLV
3, Without NASA sponsorship, Boeing can’t build it as a commercial vehicle because it would compete with EELV’s

Actually, NSF.com deleted a lot of my post and my graphics on the SD-CV concept because they felt it confused readers with the SD-HLV concept that they advocated. However, I did receive a positive note from one of the Boeing architects who proposed the inline concept without the SRBs.

“I think you might mean the Sonic Cruiser (the 787 is branded as the Dreamliner) but that is a good example here. Boeing spent much of 2001 and 2002 promoting the Sonic Cruiser concept for a Mach 0.98 airliner. It certainly looked cool but the airline interest didn’t materialize and they never took it forward to the point of offerability.

They floated the 7E7 concept soon after, which did attract the airline interest and went on to become the 787 Dreamliner. ”

If memory serves, actually, Boeing promoted several concepts of their new twin jet, the most spectacular being the Sonic Cruiser. However at that time they said that the current engine technology would either provide a near sonic cruiser or a fuel efficient airliner. It is difficult to blame the airlines for their choice. In addition the Sonic Cruiser may have required some overdue improvement to ATC worldwide. I think the Sonic Cruiser may exist already, Citation-X, that the public won’t see much of a difference between M 0.98 and M 0.83, the gains would be really small. But Boeing at that time was able to come back in the game, showing that innovation was not only taking place at Airbus. Suddenly Airbus was second in the game. Recall the history of the A350.

“The CST-100 may be where the Sonic Cruiser was in 2001 or the 7E7 was in early 2003 – a concept Boeing is promoting to see if a critical mass of customers will form. The form of the NASA authorization takes must play into this decision as well.”

For the CST to be like the Sonic Cruiser it’d have to be the “crewed X-37″. It’d have to be a publicity stunt, a smart one. Something like SpaceX can only design a capsule, look what we could do! Tada! Then when reality settles they’d go for a capsule. A little like what LMT did with the CEV Phase 1 “lifting body” monstrosity and then the capsule… The LMT CEV Phase 1 concept had zero chance of seeing the day of light but it provided a lot of buzz as to what LMT was putting forth…