The shuttle was never primarily used to send Satellites into space... It was used primarily for maned missions.

The Atlas V is the current standard for putting satellites into space.

Sierra Nevada Corporation puts a satellite into orbit almost once a week.

The pain you speak of is non existent.

> The pain you speak of is non existent.

That's simply untrue. Access to launchers is the bottleneck to satellite development. Large institutional customers have access to space, but almost nobody else does. The commercial satellite industry has been shaped by the shortage of launchers, with satellites designed to be launched infrequently with long design lives. As a result everything is tremendously expensive.

This is changing slowly with the advent of SpaceX and the develoment of launchers by other countries. There's no reason launches can't be an order of magnitude cheaper. The fuel cost is actually a minimal part of the cost of a rocket system.

I work in the space business. Getting access to a suitable launcher for smaller lower priority projects is hard.

That's completely untrue. At several points rodket production has been ramped down because demand was so low. The real issue is getting mass to orbit is stupid expencive. So, minimizing how much stuff needs to be in orbit is a huge priority. At the same time it takes little effort to give satilites a fairly long lifespan because solar power is abundant and most orbits are stable.

PS: In the end there is a fairly small list of things satilites can do, they can measure things, relay information, or act as a beacon. Useful, but we don't exactly need 10 independent world wide GPS platforms.

> with satellites designed to be launched infrequently with long design lives

That's good and let's hope it doesn't change soon. We're already risking Kessler syndrome[0], and allowing any poor schmuck to launch throwaway satellites as a way to earn money is a huge, global tragedy of commons waiting to happen.

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Nowdays you can just launch anything, you have to prove that befor it dies you can fly it out to another orbit or burn it.

But it still requires enough money that people won't be launching spacecraft equivalents of leaflets, i.e. worthless trash that is an artefact of fierce competition.

Doesn't this assume that SpaceX will succeed at reducing launch costs? If you look at volume, I don't see what you're getting at here. Almost nobody except for maybe Ariane V is operating at capacity. Delta IV tried selling commercially for years, they've yet to have one sale. Torus (I) and Athena were never exactly booked full.

A point I believe Antonio Elias made a couple years ago (I quite him a lot...) was that the satellite market is currently quite inelastic. Both when Russian launchers became available to the west, and with cheap Chinese launchers hit the market, global launch rates didn't really increase. Clients just moved around, and pocketed the difference.

Do you mean ITAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R...)?

Ah, yes. Brain-keyboard interface appears to be a bit wonky today.

What is EAR?

Export Administration Regulations (EAR). While the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) contains the U.S. Munitions List, EAR contains a Commerce Control List, which includes dual-use technologies. Both require registration with the U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

> Projects like this generate huge amounts of value for a country

Wow, I'm interested. Let's hear them!

> they help to push money around the economy (worker salaries and equipment invoices)

But that already happens with any new enterprise. Any new company created helps push money around through employee salaries and equipment invoices. What's special about a space mission in this regard?

> but also in terms of the skills gained by everybody that works on the project

But that already happens naturally in the free market. We have an explosion of tech jobs now that are increasing everyone's skills. It's almost a given now that an employee must be computer literate. Advances in technology have required that people have more skills. What's special about a space mission in this regard?

> as well as the international capital of being a spacefaring country

A.k.a. bragging rights. Do you really think international investors care if a country is throwing rockets when deciding to invest in that country? That they are that frivolous?