Fred's modification of the technology readiness levels used by NASA,
ESA, DOD, and others, based on his own personal modification of what
the standards mean over-turns the purpose of the standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

That is, Fred's attempt to re-write TRL ratings based on his own
personal opinion is the very things TRL was created to avoid. Stan
Sadin who originated the protocol in 1974 recognized that being overly
critical or not critical enough are both paths to higher costs and
under-performance.

Bench tests and flight tests of models recognized the importance of
doing a thing even if its at different scale.

For the past 50 years there has been a very strong effort among real
rocket scientists trying to compile experience and extract scaling
laws for rocket engines since that allows rocket designers to build
sub-scale models and use them to achieve higher readiness and greater
confidence in new designs without having to build full-scale test
systems. One of the major advantages of the aerospike engine - both
linear and annular - is the easy scalability of it using small
commonly available combustors.

The system described here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging

Will be developed for $5 billion and a fleet of five launchers built
for an additional $2 billion. It will lift a power satellite massing
nearly 700 tons into space. That power satellite will produce 10,000
MW and generate $4.28 billion per year in revenue selling energy at
$0.05 per kWh. That revenue when sold to investment banks, pension
funds, and others will net $80.5 billion the day it switched on. This
money will repay early-stage venture capitalists who will then have an
opportunity to exercise the supply chain created again to build
another satellite - this time for only $3.5 billion.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Once the launchers and launch infrastructure is in place, each element
takes seven days to process for launch again and seven elements per
launcher and seven elements processed in parallel and a total of
thirty-five elements in the fleet.

So, at peak, a continuous stream of satellites will be launched once
every 35 hours - lifting 250 satellites to orbit every year.

After 10 years 2,500 satellites will be on orbit generating 25 TW of
energy for humanity, largely displacing all other sources of energy.
The value of this collection of satellites is in excess of $400
trillion and the cost is less than $80 trillion.

Doing something on this scale heavily tilts the make-buy strategy
toward 'make' - especially given the structural inefficiencies in the
aerospace business today - as outlined by MIT's Sloan School of
Management. Since these inefficiencies impact non-space faring
activities as well as space-faring activities, this suggests a way to
proceed with a practical program today - starting with less than $100
million.

Create a SPC - Special Purpose Acquisition Company -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...sition_company

to raise money to buy the major airframe builders in the USA -
Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

NYSE:BA $51.66 B
NYSE:LMT $25.38 B

In March 2008 when oil prices broke the $100 per barrel mark both
companies were worth only 60% of what they're worth today. In the
future, their value may be lower than it is today.

Both Companies Today:

TOTAL: $77.04 B 100%
CONTROL: $39.29 B 51%

So, $100 million organizes a SPAC - $25 million goes toward supply
chain development, strategic studies and organizational costs. $75
million goes toward 50 million shares at $1.50 each to the original
sponsors. An IPO is then organized to issue 60 million shares at
$15.00 each - raising an additional $900 million. With this much
cash, investment banks will loan up to $45 billion to fund an
acquisition that has a chance at making money.

Is this kind of money available in the market these days?

Sure!

Resource company BHP Billiton organized nearly $40 billion to buy
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Canada;

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010...nalysts-react/

with the idea that as incomes rise in India and China the demand for
protein will increase the demand for Potash. haha - That's it! lol.

The story for buying America's aerospace business and restructuring it
for greater efficiency is more compelling. We buy the two companies
and spin off three.

(1) Civilian aircraft and aircraft systems;
(2) Military systems;
(3) Space;

The Civilian and Military systems are quite profitable and can be made
more so with the right sort of structure in place. The Space
divisions are not profitable and cannot be made so without a program
like the one I've described. This means that all money losing
divisions are loaded into the Space division and that division is
kept. The Military and Civilian aircraft divisions are sold for about
a 50% premium over their acquisition price.

If done today this means that $39.29 billion turns into $116.33
billion. After subtracting out the banking fees and transaction cost,
along with the restructuring costs, and pay back to the sponsors, we
have over $30 billion available for the $12 billion program described
above.

The SPAC can be formed in 90 days, and within six months a push is
then made for BA and LMT. Within a year we will have a program
operating to build a commercial heavy lift launcher along with a
10,000 MW power satellite. Within six years the first power satellite
will be operational. Within sixteen years nearly all the energy used
on Earth will be produced in Space.