I don't really buy this argument. The price of taking things to orbit is reflected in the reliability of the launcher. If you have a launcher that fails unrel

I don't really buy this argument. The price of taking things to orbit is reflected in the reliability of the launcher. If you have a launcher that fails unreliably, your cost of launching is going to be rather uncertain. No company is going to risk putting their cargo into space at this early stage of development. The only entity that has the cash to burn is the government, which is why NASA is footing the bill [1]. Oh, and by the way, NASA doesn't like failures all that much and they are going to send out their team of inspectors and demand a bunch of revisions be made to the launcher in the event that it fails. Guess what happens to the cost of launching? Yup, goes up. Pretty soon you're going to end up with another company just like all the other ones operating at exactly the same cost. Then NASA will find a new "SpaceX" in 10 years that satisfies their "entrepreneurship" specifications in their contracts and the whole process begins anew. The only way to break this cycle and bring down costs is to 1) Not deal with the government and find a private company willing to take on the risk of development. 2) Change the model of the program entirely and operate like the Russians--i.e, Pick one launcher and make that one as efficient as possible. [1]. http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223