"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of
satellites:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html

"But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the
absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in
the loss of over two hundred million dollars."

Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss
is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a
few cheap parts caused its loss.

"Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain.
It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting.

Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that
are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction
(Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)...