On 18 Dec, 22:48, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 18, 11:45 am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 18 Dec, 16:21, BradGuth wrote: At less than a tenth the NASA cost per LEO or GSO kg, China is CATS.

Of course China is going to charge outsiders a whole lot more than
whatever it's costing themselves.
- Brad Guth

I have stated that the key to low cost is consolidation &
globalization. There is one ingredient that is required for this and
that is transparancy. China may well be adopting the Ford Focus route
and this may well be the basis for costings.

However we do not have transparent figures for the Long March. You
might say the Long March to transparency. They do have a motive for
selling at below cost. Prestige + a possible loss leader.

- Ian Parker

Their more than qualified expertise in such physics and now more than
proven as reliable fly-by-rocket technology doesn't or at least
shouldn't require a "lost leader", especially when just about every
other nation on Earth is begging for the best and least cost
alternatives of getting the most of whatever payload deployed while
using the best failsafe of methods in exchange for each of their hard
earned loot. Unless artificially created by the likes of us, there's
no ulterior or even perpetrated cold-war motives for China to fail at
delivering the most rocket deployed bang for our badly energy inflated
buck, perhaps a good enough deal for us even if they charged ten fold
whatever it's costing for the same as having deployed one of their
own.
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know whether this is true of false but any claim needs
extensive verification. As you know the role for NASA which I
postulate is primerally that of a regulator. NASA has to examine Long
March in terms of WTO rules. There are complications as I have
mentioned but it can be done.

Fundamentally going into space with a "Ford Focus" is legal. Dumping,
or selling below cost, is illegal.


- Ian Parker