Bridwell has already become this blog’s equivalent of the boy who cried “Wolf!” He seems to have no idea how his numerous unsubstantiated claims have sent his credibility down to zero.

“Actually, the Ares I first stage has already flown successfully.”

Why are you so uninformed? You claim to be an engineer, but you clearly have no ability to ascertain facts.

The Ares I-X test flight used a 4-segment Shuttle SRM (and a non-functional upper stage), not the 5-segment Ares SRM. The 5-segment Ares SRM has only be tested horizontally, and has never flown.

” “Ares I still needed $30B to get flying, and you think the SLS will be less expensive?”

Actually, the Ares I first stage has already flown successfully. If anything, it was burning lesss funding than originally allocated because of cost overruns in the shuttle and ISS programs.”

http://www.spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=6092

You mean the 5 segment got TEST fired. It has never launched.

You are saying the 5 segment was built on time and on budget?

“Actually, the Ares I first stage has already flown successfully. If anything, it was burning lesss funding than originally allocated because of cost overruns in the shuttle and ISS programs.”

No it has NOT!!! Nelson check your facts! Ares 1X was not made with an Ares 1 first stage. You keep spouting either lies (insincere) or errors (sincere). Lies will quickly put you in a category on this forum where it will be difficult to come out. Errors you need to correct quickly or you will be ignored. Plain and simple.

“Congressional staffers have budgeted almost 10 billion for SLS and MPCV. Bill Nelson has said that those who claim that it cannot be done have an agenda.”

Why Bill Nelson has no agenda? Ask what Sen. Shelby (?) thinks of that…

“…but as long as his [SpaceX] rocket motors burn up on reentry, there is going to be a limit to how low he can go.”

True, and SpaceX may be the lowest that anyone can go, but SO WHAT? If anything, that means that the market will realize this, and look at RLV’s as the next business opportunity.

Again though you miss the point, in that only SpaceX does this right now, so the ENTIRE industry needs to start adopting the same techniques that SpaceX uses to keep costs so low. That in turn will free up more money for actual payloads, which will spur more launch activity – do you see where this is going? In a chicken & egg market, it moves the market from a neutral position and forces a new paradigm upon the launch & payload industries.

“For NASA cost is important, but not nearly as prohibative…”

That’s true only when NASA is doing something unique. When NASA is doing something routine (like moving mass to orbit) and costs are not going down because Congress/NASA is blocking free-market competition, then that is government waste.

If Congress has grand plans for the SLS, then they should announce them and let the market compete for taking care of them. But as we all know, THERE ARE NO PLANS TO USE THE SLS. Therefore there is nothing for the commercial payload industry to bid on, and Congress is wasting $30B+ on building the SLS.

Just as a point of reference, the minimum of $30B that is needed to get to the first SLS launch you could put 28 million lbs of mass into LEO using the Falcon Heavy. And not to be left out, if you used Delta IV Heavy, you could still put 3.35 million lbs of mass into LEO. One million lbs is about the mass of the ISS today.

We don’t need the SLS to do LEO or BEO exploration.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/6/

Actually, the Ares I first stage has already flown successfully. If anything, it was burning lesss funding than originally allocated because of cost overruns in the shuttle and ISS programs.

Congressional staffers have budgeted almost 10 billion for SLS and MPCV. Bill Nelson has said that those who claim that it cannot be done have an agenda.

“No demand for 53 mT at this time? In the press conference Musk said that he expected that 50% of his business would be the F-9H and 50% would be the F-9.”

You keep missing what a $80-125M launcher like Falcon Heavy does to the market. You don’t need to launch a 53mt payload to make it economical to use, since you can launch the same payload you would normally launch on a more expensive launcher like Ariane 5 or even some of the higher performance Atlas V’s. SpaceX just puts less fuel in the tanks.

The other option open to SpaceX is dual payload launches, which is what they have been pursuing for Falcon 9 and even Dragon. This is the same concept that Ariane 5 uses, but Falcon Heavy is less expensive than Ariane 5, and it can dual launch the largest satellites available today.

So yes, there is no demand for 53mt payloads today. If you disagree, then by all means list what they are, and when they plan to launch.

“1. Congress will direct NASA to move forward with the inline SD HLV. There are no major technical hurdles. It will not be cheap, but the costs will be predictable because it will use mature components, and it will easily fit within NASA’s budget.”

That’s what was said about Ares I – remember Safe, Simple and Soon?

Ares I still needed $30B to get flying, and you think the SLS will be less expensive? You are living in cloud cuckoo land my friend.

“For commercial businesses, in most instances profit is the only considration.”

That would be like saying you exist only to breathe, when in fact there is more than that (like bloviating on this blog).

Commercial companies are in the business of satisfying customer needs, and by doing that they get rewarded. In the case of launch providers, they are in the business of getting customer payloads to the right place in space without damaging them. For commercial crew, it will be the same.

Companies that only focus on profit, and not customer satisfaction, are inherently near-sighted and don’t tend to survive, whereas companies that focus on delighting their customers tend to do well AND are profitable.

“That is why SpaceX has not yet gone public.”

It isn’t, but then you don’t understand economics, so it’s easy to see why you think this.

The facts are that SpaceX has been profitable for the past few years and plans to stay that way, and they have stated publicly that they want to IPO next year (2012).