I'm willing to commit to a definite maybe.
BHO owns a substantial chunk of his woes, but it's not an open-and-shut case that we'd've gotten into reform mode in the counterfactual case of a GOP administration.

Unlikely to be an equal revenue stream.

Actually quite the opposite. As far as I know, this planet here is the only one in the existing universe that produced chlorophyll. Quite seriously, if aliens ever came to Earth, I wouldn't expect them to mutilate our cattle but rather steal our trees.

You have a rather odd concept of the looks and the space travels of Icelanders...

It's like the difference between having moral values and having a religion.

So if someone went and, say, cut a deep scar right across her face...

No child left behind.

In 1984, people also weren't always under observation by their telescreen. Actually, they almost never were. What made them "behave" was simply that they didn'T know when they would be.

So just not having a camera "trained on you" every second of your life doesn't make the total surveillance any less invasive. When you cannot tell whether you have privacy, you have none.

The cost would seem proportional to the users.
As far as running the business, just let me sharpen my AWS knives a little more. . .
Of course, in our post-capitalistic era, just having a good business plan is necessary but insufficient to protect you from Big Oligarchy and Big Government, assuming you could pry them apart with a crowbar. If you offer a viable alternative, look for "something really, really unfortunate" to arrive with an innocuous name like "Net Neutrality", or something.

They don't have nearly as much to offer if they can't do launches quickly. I'm sure they would make that a feature of their offering.

So, how much are we willing to pay as a subscription to make up the lost revenue?
Or do we just expect the vendor to eat the opportunity cost?

They can carry about 110kg to LEO, compared to the Falcon 9's 13150kg. That's 0.84% of the payload capacity. A launch is estimated to cost $4 900 000, compared to the Falcon 9's $61 200 000. That's 8.01%. That means cost per mass to orbit is nearly an order of magnitude worse.

Yes, this is a really small rocket. If you are a government or some other entity that needs to put something small in orbit right away, the USD$5 Million price might not deter you, even though you could potentially launch a lot of small satellites on a Falcon 9 for less.

And it's a missile affordable by most small countries, if your payload can handle the re-entry on its own. Uh-oh. :-)

Yeah, your sig is a hoot.

so, indeed, you're affirming the insult

you're telling me you see no distinction between science and business

why are there so many fucking morons in this world?

The NSA should pay for the information just like everyone else who wants it! A national security letter must not be the crowbar to getting for free what others have to shell out quite a bit of money for. Security and all that, ok, but there's money to be made and a business model to protect!

Huh? Oh, I mean, we protect our customer's privacy! That's the reason!