If XCOR achieves the turnaround time in the Economist article on suborbital adventure travel that Rand spotted of 4 flights per day, that puts them with higher capacity per plane per day than Rocketplane’s 3. (Full disclosure: I have business dealings with both firms.) Assuming that their two-seater does not take more people than Rocketplane’s to service, that should give them a revenue advantage in a Boom town scenario and a cost advantage in the Dullsville scenario. If Xerus indeed costs only about $10 million to develop vs. more than $40 million for Rocketplane (according to Chuck Lauer at ISDC), then they will have lower implicit interest costs too. Number of lifetime flights and flights per major overhaul are interesting questions that will also factor in. Since neither plane has flown, a 33% difference in servicing time per passenger is quite speculative at this point, but interesting.

This cost/revenue disadvantage per plane won’t be a problem for Rocketplane if it can fly 100 flights of 3 passengers in their first year and earn $60 million before any of the competitors can bring their planes on line (although Carmack is optimistic he will start flying next year according to what he told me at Space Access).

In a boom town scenario, RLI, Virgin, Armadillo, Blue, Masten, SpaceDev, XCOR and probably a few new players will all build more craft than they were originally anticipating. This will result in lots of business for the low cost/high value player, but probably several bankruptcies or mergers eventually.

The Economist has a good roundup of what’s going on in the private spaceflight business. They’re pretty optimistic (appropriately, in my opinion).

at the Texas Space Authority organizational meeting tomorrow in Austin. I am too. Email me at dinkin@space-shot.com or comment if you think we can do something for you from a business angle or want to see my slides.

— Update —

Buzz continues to promote Starcraft Boosters and his plan for many space adventurer orbiters on the same launcher. He asserts that orbital is “so hard that only 3 governments have done it”. That was also true of people to 100 km before Rutan won the Ansari X Prize. Number of governments that can go to 100 km without losing money=0. Number of governments that have a reusable craft that can fly again in less than a week to 100 km=0. He views suborbital as a dead end. He is still promoting lotteries to fund spaceflight. I asked him to join forces once skill games can finance orbital flights and he agreed.

I bet Buzz $20 that orbital craft would emerge without government funding.

Alan Boyle reports at MSNBC.com that “several” vendors are in negotiations for $500 million in commercial orbital transport service (with the same acronym as commercial off the shelf):

Oklahoma-based Rocketplane Kistler and California-based Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, acknowledged that they were finalists. Other sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the official NASA reticence, indicated that the Virginia-based t/Space consortium, California-based SpaceDev, Texas-based Spacehab and Andrews Space in Seattle were also on the list.

Before being bought by George French, owner of Rocketplane (whose flights I am offering as a prize at Space-Shot.com), Kistler had an agreement with NASA which was unawarded after an objection from SpaceX. In this competition, there are many strong companies and the winner may have a march on orbital adventure travel competition. I hope the winner chooses a fixed price agreement so it will maintain the discipline to compete in the private markets too.