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.
>
NASA has never done this, at least not directly. There's an argument to
be made that commercial payloads launched on the shuttle are
effectively subsidized, since they don't pay the full launch cost, but
that's not really an issue, since shuttle launch still costs about the
same as expendables (at least it's no cheaper). IIRC shuttle no longer
takes commercial payloads, at least if there's any viable alternative.

> 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?

It is, in that by making the cost of launch cheaper on a competing
vehicle (since the payload no longer has to cover all the development
costs), NASA is skewing the market in favor of one launch provider over
another. There's a separate issue of making the risk to investors
higher, since NASA is subsidizing the competition. In practice, since
NASA hasn't had a successful vehicle development program in over twenty
years (!) a smart investor wouldn't get too worried about it, but it's
still a factor. The losing streak has to stop sooner or later.

> 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?
>
I believe you are correct, at least for payloads where there is a
non-NASA alternative. Bear in mind that any NASA subsidy to launch
costs has been indirect (in that the payload doesn't bear the full cost
of the launch, nor does it cover development costs). There has never
been an explicit program where NASA pays some set percentage of launch
costs where the launch costs are fixed by some independent method - the
market distortion has been more subtle than that.

......Andrew