Darn it Gary, you've made this comparison before, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's not apples to oranges; it's apples to peanuts. The Falcon 1 promises more than 4 times the payload of the Super Strypi, which puts it in a COMPLETELY different category of vehicle, and is produced via a completely different management process. Your comparison is as ridiculous as predicting the demand for Ariane Vs by looking at the demand for Tauruses. If you're going to keep saying this, you need to back it up with something better than a general similarity in price.

Also, you ought to know by now that cost isn't strictly a matter of the technical nature of any given system; it's also a product of the management and contracting practices. Case in point: the entire SpaceShipOne program was somewhat cheaper than the composite tanks which NASA installed in the DC-X, which *itself* was considered the epitomy of cost-effectiveness. So you just CANNOT state that a government-procured solid rocket is invariably cheaper than a privately-produced liquid. And keep in mind that the folks who designed the Super Strypi are the same folks who recently authored a paper claiming that the ABSOLUTE THEORETICAL MINIMUM number of personel for ANY KIND of orbital launch was 55; but the Russians just launched their new Soyuz with 20. Clearly the folks at Los Alamos still have plenty to learn.

I'm not saying that I know the Falcon I price to be profitable -- although I'm pretty sure the Falcon V price is, I suspect you might be right about the loss leader thing -- but most of the statements you're making about it are unreasonable, unthinking, and just plain wrong.