The following is a quote from Space Reviews recent article which compares Space X and ULA pricing.

Air Force ULA Contract Designed to Exclude Space X and Protect Legacy Systems
The SpaceX vehicle, Falcon 9, is priced for 2013 on the company’s website for all the world to see, at $54–59.5 million for a commercial flight, while a government flight would also include mission assurance fees of around 20%. Pricing for the comparable Atlas is much more obscure, but is frequently cited in a range of $150–180 million.

But the planned 5 year purchase of 40 medium to heavy lift cores for 15 Billion which comes to $375 million per core reveals a much more intricate and systematic attempt to deter the competitive pricing from SpaceX’s Falcon 9–a more effective and efficient launch system which has derived purely from the genius of individual entrepreneurship.

This kind of scandalous and immoral/ wasteful and fraudulent and fatuous overspending depict everything that is wrong with the Defense Industry and with the American Federal Government, in general.

The federal government has regulations regarding what technology you can take out of the country. You are living in a dream world if you believe the feds and the military would allow a high tech firm to goto a third world dicator state and hand them orbital missile technology that could be used against us.

You are still just trying to peddle your bullsh$$ and have still failed to show a law that would allow private citizens to build a missle and launch a human on it starting in 1961… Still waiting for a fact, not your BS ..tick tock tick tock.

=yawn= It’s a big planet. Go find a locale and go fly. Ntohing is stopping you…. except the very parameters of the free market you’re trying to servive for a profit. That’s why governments do it. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

“The other investors in his [Musk] firm [SpaceX] which you seem perfectly happy to see lose money”

OK, now you’re really showing your ignorance about how investors in private companies make money.

SpaceX is a private company, not public, and it has a limited number of investors with Musk being the majority stockholder. Look here for details. The rules for privately held companies are different than public ones, which is why only “qualified investors” are allowed to buy stock. I imagine you wouldn’t qualify.

if you notice who has invested in SpaceX besides Musk, it is professional venture capital firms. They aren’t looking for “quarterly dividends” like you and your grandma, they want the money staying in the company so it can be used for growth.

Their exit strategy is to wait for SpaceX to either go public or to get purchased by someone for a boatload of money – that is the standard VC strategy. They also know how long it takes companies in the hardware business to get to that point, so Musk has plenty of time to get them to their exit. And so far he’s doing all the right things to make it a big one.

Now do you understand why your “quarterly driven” drivel is just that – drivel? It doesn’t apply to a VC backed private company whose goal is growth, not dividends. Sheesh.

I cannot deny it Eddas, but there are a modest number of people drawn by the inspiration who are smart and trying to do new and useful things, not just in space but also on earth, and in the air. At least with the Commercial program and the SAAs there is room for more ideas than can exist under the heel of the Constellation/SLS/Orion leviathan (or will exist if NASA micromanagement subsumes commercial crew). We as advocates should do our best to identify the good and bad ideas and the effective groups.

“What’s this ‘we’ bit. In fact ‘we’ are talking about commercial HSF. There’s nothing that says it has to be an American enterprise. Free market capitalism is not restricted to the US of A. The bottom line is clear: commerical HSF cannot attract the kind of private capital investment necessary to get flying because of the high risk and low ROI of the very limited market it wants to service in this era. That’s why governments do it.”

Once AGAIN just more BS. Still have not answered a single question of mine with an actual fact. Just more of your spinning BS. You have tick tocked endlessly about how nothing has stopped commercial firms in the U.S. about how they have had an open route to make missiles and launch people. I still have failed to see ONE SINGLE LAW allowing private citizens, starting in 1961 to build a missile and launch a human on it.

Hell, fireworks bottle rocket sizes are regulated. Model rockets can not launch anything heavier than one pound and 4 ounces of propellant but you continue with your moronic tick tocking about how a private citizen can just bang out a freakin’ missile/rocket and launch a human since 1961. Stop your freakin’ BS and provide a link showing how this was legal and actively encouraged in the United States by providing an actual link that shows the government and military would allow it.

You still have failed to provide anything but your same BS…. tick tock tick tock….

What’s this ‘we’ bit. In fact ‘we’ are talking about commercial HSF. There’s nothing that says it has to be an American enterprise. Free market capitalism is not restricted to the US of A. The bottom line is clear: commerical HSF cannot attract the kind of private capital investment necessary to get flying because of the high risk and low ROI of the very limited market it wants to service in this era. That’s why governments do it.

Coastal Ron wrote @ December 14th, 2011 at 11:24 am
DCSCA wrote @ December 14th, 2011 at 3:33 am

“And slipping the launch date in 2011 is hilarious for a commercial, quarterly driven, for profit firm.”

Since Elon Musk is the majority stockholder of SpaceX, who is bugging him for quarterly profits?

The other investors in his firm which you seem perfectly happy to see lose money, including Uncle Sam, who has subsidied him and who he continues to hit up for investment, but if you want to advocate Master Musk’s business plan of repeatedly slipping announced schedules, of losing money four quarters a year for year after year as a way to attract capital investment capital from the private sector in commercial HSF, go for it. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

In fact, it’s inaccurate and standard, if not correct terminology is former speaker. =sigh= And in so far as NASA being a ‘thinking’ organization, it should be and has been since its inception and Gingrich’s babble only reinforces how much he doesn’t know. Case in point- during their final television broadcast by the Apollo 11 crew on their transit back, they paid tribute to a number of ‘thinkers’ – not only the ‘giants of science’ but the mision planners at NASA. What Gingrich “thinks” is very much a matter of what’s opportune for the day. His flip-flops and inconsistencies are lwlegend. The former speaker can be of help to America’s space program by staying as far away from it as possible, hanging out by the doughnuts and coffeemaker in a faculty lounge at any community college.

I didn’t see this quip as a criticism at all but a recognition that NASA is a thinking organization and must be for the hardware and systems to come about to meet the goals.

The alternative, unsaid, is to run around without thinking?
and from that exercise to build and launch a rocket into space?

It’s standard terminology and a common honorarium to call high ranking politicians, and also military personnel, by the title they achieved. He’s not Speaker of the House now, but he is “Mr. Speaker”. Mr. Bush is still President Bush, even though he’s not President anymore. You can refrain from such terminology if you want, but it has nothing to do with the point that I made.

I don’t think he meant that we need NASA to inspire scientists, but he certainly thinks that we need space exploration to inspire scientists. I think that’s garbage, but I’m just telling you what he thinks.