en-us http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1 Comments from The Space Review: Of India and ICBMs: two current concerns for American small-satellite launch http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1020024498Maybe the government is stuck picking winners in one market or the other, but possibly not both. I think an important (if unpopular) question here is whether there's a bit of a bubble in satellite constellations, somewhat like the late 90s situation. If so, should the government be tacitly subsidizing bubbles? I look at the plans of some of these small launcher companies and their schedules seem absurdly aggressive to me. Look at Rocket Labs. You can find projections of an Electron launch for February of this year -- that's two months ago. In more recent news, RL announced they'd qualified their second stage. Cubecab might be an exception, since they say they are aiming for a first launch in 2018. But picosat launch from fighter planes might have been done in the late 50s (the Navy's NOTSNIK program). Cubecab is taking a very conservative approach with little upmass potential compared to the looming demands of an operation like OneWeb. Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:39:07 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1020024498 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019991174Loving the insecurity of the leading space nation. LOL!! Wonder what happens when the GSLV starts lifting 4 tons into GEO at $100 million per launch. Thu, 28 Apr 2016 03:52:47 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019991174 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019957437It would not. A large black g of waiting payloads for companies like RocketLab, FireFly and numerous others helps securing the financials of a fledgling startup with no proven product. The capital available depends entirely on how fast can you enter service and how fast can you ramp up revenue streams. Investor are in this not for charity Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:03:10 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019957437 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019892262Interesting article. Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:01:00 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019892262 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019889625But the beneficiary of releasing ICBMs will be commercial companies - namely OrbitalATK, but also many of the companies looking for cheap rides to launch their small satellites. So by deciding NOT to release the ICBMs, is the US government not already picking winners (the still struggling small satellite launcher market) and losers (OrbitalATK and the small satellite operators)? Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:10:21 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019889625 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019881773The best solution would be to temporarily lift the ban on the PSLV until similar US launch vehicles become commercially operational. Once these launchers are available, impose the ban again. This would be a win-win for all the parties involved in the debate. Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:27:33 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019881773 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019868613Let's DO THE MATH: a year's worth of obsolete ICMB maintenance is $10Meg. A single super-cheap foreign small-sat launch is $25-$30Meg. How did a measly $10Meg become so impactful and important that we are considering destabilizing the US's resumption space leadership? Does this argument make any sense? Deputy Assistant Secretary Doug Loverro is quoted as saying DOD has no information about the impact of releasing 'spare' ICBMs on US commercial spacelaunch capabilities. I have not met the gentleman, but I doubt the lack of interest or lack of forethought he implies is accurate. I have great sympathy for the hardware vendors who need to get their products up ASAP. They need to ask themselves why it is not OK for India to destabilize US commercial spacelaunch development, but it is OK for the US government to do so. Maybe the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see a way forward that does not leave them dependent upon the same US corporate Brahmins who are holding them hostage now. Small-satellite manufacturers could invest in SpaceX by creating a 'Falcon-1 Division.' They could demand that the exemptions that allow Indian launches be automatically rescinded if and when an American launcher is available with the same weight launch capacity. Best case would be legislation mandating fines that are are a multiple of the launch price of the US companies with the same capabilities. Protecting small-satellite providers' markets for them while they get their hardware act together is not a great idea because this whole argument presumes that their competition is domestic. After all, if their markets were threatened by foreigners, then American launch waivers would have no effect! Therefore, small satellite providers need to be very frank about who their domestic competitors are,. They need to make very clear to all of us what, if any, connection these heretofore phantom competitors might have with the other advocates of extending the waivers. Such as companies sharing directors with legacy DOD contractors, for instance. In the meantime, Dnepr and Rokot should not be allowed to compete launches containing any US hardware or software. This is a no-brainer. This whole situation is especially suspicious because of the following information. SPACENEWS, Peter B. de Selding - March 29, 2016: 'An official with a commercial launch service provider had another view. It goes beyond launch services, this official said. India has not fully opened its satellite telecommunications market to non-Indian satellite service providers, funneling all satellite bandwidth contracts through the Indian Space Research Organisation. “This is a country that is basically closed to us, and that’s an understatement,” this official said. “Why are we unilaterally allowing access to the U.S. market?”' It all smells of mil-spec corporate welfare to me. This is bad because our troops are not going to get the best gear from corporations that do not innovate. Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:37:12 +0000http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2969/1#IDComment1019868613