Wayne Throop wrote:

My problelm with this one is that you can revise and improve suborbital
flight all you want, and you're still no farther along than the X15 was,
in terms of basic capability. Is there some reason to think this will
spill over to orbtial capability?

Well, yes. Suborbital and orbital technology are just different
aspects of the same technology, which is launch technology in general.
If one launches at less than orbital speeds, it's "suborbital"; if one
launches at greater than suborbital speeds, it's "orbital." What's
even better, there are actual commercial applications of suborbital
technology -- one being thrill-flights, but another one being very
rapid intercontinental air travel. Incidentally, this last application
was long seen by science fiction writers, by the 1940's it was a
standard component of their fictional futures.

My problem with this is that there has been lots of money to be made for
less costly launch capability for some time. Slots for comm satellites,
weather satellites, mapping satellites, and on and on. Projects like
Iridium might have been profitable if the costs of keeping the satellites
up and supplying more were less. So it seems to me there's been economic
motive for a long time, and not much has come of it.

A lot has come of it. The _reason_ why there are multiple space
agencies in the commercial launch business today is _because_ of the
satellite launch work. Much that has come of it, though, has been slow
and incremental improvements in the safety and reliability of the
launchers. This is not as dramatic as, say, a breakthrough leading to
an SSTO reusable space ship, but it is _very_ important to the ability
of private companies to get into the business.

It is possible that
governments block progress, such as insisting that the Shuttle program
can and should do everything. But even so, if somebody else could launch
for a lower price, I don't think they'd have problems getting customers
away from the Shuttle.

They have been doing just that, especially after the _Columbia_
disaster.

Note: I'm wearing my skeptical hat here. I *do* see these points,
and agree that that they are positive. I am not merely dismissing
them, or even attempting to "refute" them. I'm just not very optimistic
on how much they will accelerate progress.

They have been doing so visibly in the last few years. You now have
space tourism, with at least one large corporation interested in
getting into the business and multiple smaller entrants in the field.
You also have at least five national space agencies launching orbital
payloads, and at least two interested in constructing manned Moonbases.
We're seeing a Second Moonrace starting right before our eyes.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan