"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
It never fails to amaze me that NASA doesn't actively seek out new
launch vehicles for its payloads. Under current NASA regs, I believe
that SpaceX would have to launch its Falcon rocket 14 times
successfully before NASA could put a payload on it.

Actually, that's not true. A NASA payload could ride the first launch of a
new design, once it had been subjected to a thorough certification process.
The document at
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/procurement/...aunvehcert.pdf will
explain the process. It is true that NASA does reserve the right to require
that a Category 3 payload (e.g. Cassini) be launched on an LV configuration
that has demonstrated 14 successful launches in a row. However, this is not
true of category 1 or 2 payloads. One of the projects that I'm working on
now is an examination of the Delta IV M+4,2 for use in orbiting a GOES
satellite (a category 2 bird). By the manifested launch date, Delta IV will
have flown 5 times, only one of which is the same as the configuration
selected for the GOES launch.

What is the benefit to the US taxpayer for NASA to not support new,
cheaper launch vehicles?

NASA is not the only agency that can support new vehicles, as the DOD is
proving. Given its budget, I think you can understand why NASA might be more
willing to let some other customer be the pioneer. Still, I believe you'll
see NASA payloads on SpaceX at some time in the future.

The satellite companies, conversely, used to
award block contracts to untested launch vehicles in the hopes that
some of these would emerge as cheaper launchers for GEO satellites. In
the case of SeaLaunch this policy worked very well.

Was Zenit, a proven booster, modified that much for the SeaLaunch
enterprise? Or was the only thing new the launch concept?

-Kim-