Re: Re: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings

[KellySt@aol.com]

KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >==stupidy is not limited to one country or ideology. The 
>> > USA may have the biggest space program, but why has 
>> > it taken so long for cheap access into space with 
>> > $1000 per lb payloads.
>> 
>> None of the potential builders has been able to identify
>> a customer for it,
>> but it looks like thats changing.
>
>Yeah. Know what? The NASA doesn't want to put a 
>Canadian satellite on orbit 'cause the CIA or FBI say it's 
>too powerful!!!!

Not knowing which sat your talking about I can't be specific.  In general NASA
no longer launches comercial cargo.  Your comment about the CIA or FBI are a
bit vaugue.  FBI has no interest in Sats, but the CIA and NRO have a big issue
with the new high res comercial recon stats.  Specifically they comercially
sell sat photots as good as all but the best inteligence spy sats.  Hence all
teh customers can buy spy sat service comercially.  US companies and launch
service can't launch or sell such systems by law.



>(Anyway, why haven't the canadians launched it by 
>Ariane: it's the one with the best history and it's 
>cheaper...)

>Looks like if they didn't reject customers, they'd have 
>more customers, right??

Wrong.  Oh they might get a couple here or there, but that doesn't relate to
our origional topic.  Why no ones developing fleets of new low cost launchers.
Why didn't they go to Ariane?  Or why arn't other firms trying to go to them?

NASA is not a launcher service.  They don't do comercial work, or at least
never do it acording to commercial premises.  Fleets of new launches, will
need major customers.  Not occasional launches by a government research
agency.

Kelly