>>Oh how I wish that NASA engineers
wouldn't be so averse to designing space-systems that would use
off-the-shelf hardware, instead of
them contemptuously referring to it
as 'obsolete technology'!<<

I haven't seen that mindset. I've never heard an engineer refer to COTS as "obsolete technology" (although I have heard shuttle components referred to by that expression). I have seen efforts to use COTS *when it meets the specs*. In some cases those specs may seem overbearing and excessive, but closer, informed examination often reveals the need for such specs. They're written based on lessons learned, sometimes very expensive lessons.

I hear over and over how "private industry" is the panacea to cheap spaceflight. Frankly, I don't believe it - even moreso now that my work involves analyzing the expendable boosters that NASA satellites ride upon. As I look at these commercial vehicles' designs and review the testing they underwent in order to ensure commercial success, I'm beginning to understand why costs are high - and will remain high if success is demanded. The new companies with their idealistic pronouncements of CATS via their products will find this out, hopefully not the hard way.

What is needed is a level of market demand that allows this degree of effort to continue and yet be profitable. Believe it or not, the launcher builders are *not* getting rich off their launch business, even when costs are reduced as low as possible. The profit margin is very, very slim.

I honestly don't think launchers -successful launchers - are going to get much cheaper than they are now. What's needed is a market that demands higher flight rates.

-Kim-
-my opinions, I do not speak for my employer-