Beal Aerospace and NASA Launch Subsidies

I got a vastly different take on Beal's statement. It sounded like to
me they were saying that NASA was undercutting their MARKET for
launch services by subsidizing launch COSTS for COMMERCIAL payloads.
If NASA has contracted with an aerospace company to develop a new
launch system, that's NOT the same thing as undercutting the launch
MARKET, is it? If so, how?

My understanding is that as of 1996 (I believe that's when the bill
passed), NASA can no longer subsidize launch costs NOR can they carry
commercial payloads. Am I incorrect? Can anyone confirm?

Jack

>
> > I am confused about something. I know NASA use to launch
commercial
> > payloads and subsidize the high launch costs, thus undercutting
the
> > commercial launch services market. But I thought they were no
longer
> > allowed to do either (launch commercial payloads/subsidize launch
> > costs). Is NASA still doing either? Beal Aerospace shut down
(10/00)
> > because they couldn't compete with NASA's subsidies? Does anyone
know
> > the real story here?
>
> Beal's official statements were to the effect that NASA was
> undercutting investor confidence by pushing various schemes to
> dramatically lower the cost of access to space. IOW, NASA is
> subsidizing the likes of LockMart (X-33) in their efforts to build
low
> cost launchers. This greatly increases the perceived risk to
investors
> of investing in Beal or one of the other fully private efforts.
That's
> his public story. There is evidence that there were cost overruns
and
> other issues starting to arise that drove up the costs to Beal, so
it
> may have been simply convenient to blame NASA. That doesn't mean
that
> NASA hasn't been doing a grave disservice to launch vehicle
startups
> (as well as the taxpayer) by pissing away vast sums on projects
that
> deliver nothing except a perception that spaceflight is harder and
more