In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:52:05 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..


Why should NASA bethe organisation that will act as a government subsidy
dispenser for some loser who cannot get his act and business plan together?

Why should we assume that the problem is "some loser who cannot get
his act and business plan together"?

because there's no law against offering launch services to NASA--you
can do it tomorrow if you have the ability to carry it out.

There's also no law requiring them to purchase your services. I'm not
sure what your point is.

There is no law either requiring that your local supermarket buy produce from
more than one supplier or for that matter, that it didn't buy all foodstuff
only from its own subsidiaries.


And you are wrong anyways - you can buy manned space access now and the price
very probably reflects present demand.

That's utter nonsense.

Two private citizens have paid the cheapest price on the market for
manned access to space. How is this nonsense?

Because the supply isn't satisfying the demand.

Its not? There is basicly zero demand for space access as things stand.
Increasing supply will not help because guess what - people will still
not have anywhere interesting to go in space and thus don't care.

Artificialy increasing supply by governemt subsidises will not change this.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++