Robin Snelson reports on the "losers" of the X-Prize competition. It's a good survey of what's going on in the suborbital world right now, and some of them could still end up being winners.

Also at today's issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman wonders whether NASA will renege on its launch deal with the Air Force (my money's on "yes"). I think the piece is mistitled. The question isn't whether NASA can keep up its end of the deal, but whether it will.

Also, Jeff Foust has a movie review from the premiere of Tom Hanks' Magnificent Desolation.

There is no place to comment on these essays at Foust's site, so I'm going to comment here.

I found the Dinerman piece to be rather muddled. The key issue is the contradiction in NASA policy--how come they are promising to seek the lowest commercial bidders for ISS resupply while also agreeding to utilize the relatively expensive EELV options? And if the upstarts like t/Space and SpaceX succeed in building cheaper rockets, why shouldn't NASA buy them instead of committing to EELV? (Note that I only toss these out as questions to be answered, not intending to imply that I have opinions either way. Space launch policy is, and always will be, tied to national security interests, and supporting a stable of reliable rockets for national security payloads is a sensible policy.) But I think that Dinerman missed the mark here.

I found the Snelson piece a little confusing. It is a good overview of everyone who is out there working in this field at the time. But at times I suspected that he was writing somewhat tongue-in-cheek about these companies. It seems that by his standards in order to be considered an "active competitor" all you have to do is maintain your website and claim that you're in the race. But saying that you have great ideas and only need a rich benefactor to fund you to implementation is like saying that pigs could be excellent aviators if only they had wings.

If Snelson was being serious, then the article is flawed. If he was winking at all of us, then he is brilliant.

My suspicion is that NASA was coerced into this "agreement" and when political circumstances change, they will renege. Why not?

On Mr. Dinerman's article, it's not even clear to me that it's a good idea for NASA to work with the Air Force here. Supposedly, NASA used to "buy launch services on a competitive basis" which somehow meant usually launching its stuff on the Delta 2. Now it's agreed to purchase use of the Atlas 5/Delta 4 "EELV" platforms. Superficially, I don't see a real change, but neither approach furthers any goals that NASA should be working towards. Genuine competitive bids would be better than the current processes.

Now the US military seems quite satisfied with their precarious industrial infrastructure. Too many logistical needs are supplied by one source (the F-35, Lockheed Martin, small arms ammunition -prior to the end of 2003, solely by Alliant Techsystems, cruise missiles - Raytheon). It appears to me that the EELV program adds yet another vulnerbility.

I think a useful rule of thumb here is that no program should have only one supplier. For the current programs that apparently can't justify multiple suppliers, we should probably phase them out even if the competition-based replacements have inferior specs.

Well, actually neither is correct, Dwayne, since he's a she. ;-)

Karl: I think a useful rule of thumb here is that no program should have only one supplier.

Another problem with NASA's approach to carry out the president's vision. They will have at least three different components (CEV, SRB, ET) with a single supplier...

Robin wrote: "XCOR never entered the contest because of the rule prohibiting government-funded technology, since their strategy is to pursue any and all R&D contracts that advance their own goals."

Wrong. We never entered because a)it was not part of our business plan and b)some X-Prize entrants discussed engine design with us, which meant we knew their plans. Such an unfair advantage was another reason not to enter. And we have never pursued "any and all R&D contracts" from the government.

"Now the contest is over and there are no such rules, XCOR is dusting off its EZ-Rocket, a rocket-powered Rutan kit plane"

Wrong. The Long-EZ is not a kit plane; it is plans-built. We are flying because the X-Prize Cup asked us, and is paying us, to fly a retired vehicle.