Over at today’s issue of The Space Review, Robin Snelson writes about NASA’s latest (and very interesting) Centennial Challenge, to demonstrate lunar landing technology. Also Jeff Foust writes about Elon Musk and SpaceX’s status, and there’s an interview with Newt Gingrich, on space prizes, private enterprise, and NASA.

[Update a few minutes later]

I just got around to reading the Gingrich interview myself, and clearly, under a (hypothetical, and unlikely) Gingrich administration, space policy would look much different:

I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.

And he’s just warming up. I’m sure that Mark Whittington will now attack Newt as an “Internet rocketeer.”

[Update at 1 PM PDT]

I had been unaware of the schedule controversy described in the comments. It would be interesting to see a response from Ken Davidian or Brant Sponberg.

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).