Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

The problem with this is that Proton has been the driver
of launch cost reduction in recent years. With it out
of the picture, launch prices would rise from current
levels. Since U.S. companies seem incapable of competing
in the commercial launch world market, Arianespace would
then, by default, get to decide how much NASA would have
to pay to launch each lunar mission.

So you don't believe SpaceX will be able to deliver at their quoted
prices ($6M for Falcon I, $12M for Falcon V)?

Just entering the discussion.

Proton is a bit bigger than either version of the Falcon. The Falcon
competes with Orbital's launchers and if the Falcon I comes in at
the $6M quoted it should undercut their fixed base launchers.
Aerial launches still have some advantages in orbital flexibility.

The Russian launcher nearest to the Falcon class is Rokot and
I wonder how things will be if they ever run out of old missile
parts.

It remains to be seen whether Space-X can deliver consistently
at the prices they quote or whether they are quoting "loss leader"
prices.

Falcon V, I assume, will require a successful Falcon I.

SpaceX has shown the ability to provide funding in order to
get to its planned launch. Is that the only difference between
them and Microcosm? Microcosm has made a few test flights
but has not yet provided a vehicle. They have been around
for quite a while.

SpaceX needs to provide us with a demonstration. If the
first flight fails I hope they have the will and resources to
continue because many successful vehicles have progressed
past early failures.

Also, I notice you didn't mention SeaLaunch -- I haven't looked at the
numbers recently, but AIUI they're fairly cheap and can launch into
pretty much any orbit you want.

As far as U.S. companies go we have both ILS and SeaLaunch,
and that in both cases is U.S. with an asterisk.

Mike Walsh