“ The best thing that can be done is to focus on developing a sustainable, stable National Space Policy that spans decades and which the WH, Congress, and the US Taxpayer can agree on.”

That would be nice, but it won’t happen with our system of government. Besides, if you think about it, it sounds like the old Soviet-style central government planning system, and we all know how that turned out.

Instead, why not use commerce, which is what the U.S. has the most experience with? That’s why many of us advocate for Congress to back commercial crew for the ISS (it’s already law, but not fully funded), because once established, it can be used for Bigelow-type stations, or whoever wants to hire them.

The quicker we change space from being a “space program”, the faster we’ll expand into space. NASA can’t do it all by itself.

In particular, they’re not going to be thrilled about putting their billion-dollar satellites on God’s own paint shaker.

That applies to the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/business/global/08rocket.html?_r=4&src=busln

Only the unwashed masses would believe such marketing BS.
Competition ? Liberty won’t even make it to the starting line.

VirgilSamms, you keep painting yourself into corner. You are no better than a Barling or Tarrant Tabor Bomber supporter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703515504576142391287397056.html

My sources at NASA HQ indicate Bolden and Garver are being slowly but surely pushed out of the loop and Scolese is the man really running NASA right now. If correct, it signals a return to the usual NASA model. Too bad. While I was no supporter of the Obama approach, the “old” NASA was/is dysfunctional and Scolese hasn’t shown any indication he is willing/able to challenge NASA to demonstrate cost/schedule/technical excellence.

Time to wipe the slate clean and start over. The best thing that can be done is to focus on developing a sustainable, stable National Space Policy that spans decades and which the WH, Congress, and the US Taxpayer can agree on. A Decadal Study approach similar to the Science Community may be a good place to start but by itself is insufficient as there also needs to be some economical return (directly or indirectly) to justify the investment. Otherwise, HSF in the US is done for.

Just my $0.02.

“It has already been spelled out for you.”

You base your whole support for Liberty on a New York Times article that quotes the marketing handout? Truly deep thinking on your part, especially because the NYT quotes ATK as saying “ATK hopes…”

Let me give you an example of what you’re missing. When Falcon 9 was announced, everyone could see that it was going to compete with Atlas 401, and that it was going to be significantly less expensive than Atlas. It was also going to be less expensive than using Ariane 5 when it launches dual payloads, so it’s easy to understand where it fits in the market, and what it’s advantages are.

For Liberty, payload-wise it competes with Delta IV Heavy, but the DoD/NRO (the only DIV-H customer) are very conservative with their Billion $ satellites, and as orders for Falcon 9 Heavy from them have shown (none announced), they don’t look exclusively at cost when they choose a launcher. So in the med-heavy market, Liberty will likely have to prove itself over some period of time before the DoD/NRO will consider using for some of their needs – but that could be years. In the meantime, Falcon 9 Heavy, which costs 1/2 the price of Liberty, and carries 50% more, will be in a better position to take away business from Liberty before it even launches. So that’s the med-heavy launcher market.

For the medium launcher market, now Liberty is competing against launchers that already exist, and cost FAR LESS for 10,000 kg payloads. Falcon 9 is $56M and Atlas V is around $100M, so compared to Liberty’s $180M price, why would anyone use it?

So again, using your own brain power, who specifically is going to be buying lots of Liberty flights, outside of the mythical MPCV? What market niche will it dominate, and why?

And I think the more important fact that you’re overlooking is that Liberty depends on government facilities, so there is no way they could “extend their brand” to the west coast or somewhere along the equator without significantly raising prices. The VAB, crawler and tower needed for the Liberty are all huge expenses, especially when compared to much smaller facilities needed for it’s competitors. It’s an anachronism whose time was last decade, and it will soon fade from the spotlight.

Liberty who?

Gee whiz, Ron, read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/business/global/08rocket.html?_r=4&src=busln

It has already been spelled out for you. Do I have to keep going over it again and again so you have more opportunities to make false arguments against it? Your “it shakes like the dickens” arguments are pathetic.

And then there is this really funny angle; it is too powerful. C’mon. Puh-lease. The only reason it is “too powerful” is because it is more powerful than that person’s favorite competitor.

The competition is over. Liberty

Couldn’t it delivery cargo? Well… No. It can shoot a cargo hopper into LEO but has no ability to rendezvous. It’s too small for ATV and over-powered for Dragon and Cygnus. In any case, both those vehicles have their own in-house LVs and would only use a third-party LV in the event of a failure and stand-down of these.

Ultimately, ATK and Astrum are taking a very risky gamble by throwing their metaphorical hat into what is an already extremely crowded ~10t IMLEO market. If they run into any serious technical issues (and the skepticism that ESA posters have expressed about the suitability of the Ariane-5 core for the Liberty US suggests that those issues await), then it could turn into an expensive R&D dead end with no salable product.

“It’s the only response needed and makes the rest of your argument worthless.”

I don’t think you understand the issue here.

If SpaceX never sells a Falcon 9 Heavy, they still continue on as a business, since Falcon 9 Heavy is essentially a Falcon 9 with two Falcon 9 cores acting as boosters (just like the Delta IV family), and they have lots of orders for Falcon 9.

If Liberty never sells a flight, their business is a failure. Heck, even if they sell a few it may not be enough to sustain the business.

And that’s why it’s important to understand WHO IS GOING TO USE IT?

You keep dodging the question, so I’m starting to think that you’ve drank the ATK PR koolaid, and you have no clue if anybody needs what they’re pushing.

So what satellites, vehicles, companies or governments are going to want Liberty over the competition, and why?