NASA Proposed Rule: Commercial Acquisition: Anchor Tenancy

Just as I hoped and expected. This change doesn't yet commit NASA funds to any such services, but from an investor's standpoint it's a huge step. This alone could boost stock in SNC, SpaceX, Bigelow, etc., and unleash more technology investment funding, before a single additional dime comes from NASA.

It looks like NASA wants to buy any and all rockets that take humans into space, especially, the really cheap ones that sell at known affordable prices that compete with the Russian monopoly on human access to space.
No one is going to get in their way on that one.
They also want to fully fund the MPCV/Orion/SLS after spending $12B with nothing in space yet and no firm commitments on when they are going to get stuff in space.
No one is going to get in their way on that one either.
Face the fact that no one is going to get in their way to spending whatever they want to get their people and equipment into space for whatever reason, especially in an upcoming election year in a really poor economy and waning foreign support and multi-tasking 3 wars with a waiting list of more to come. If you face this fact, then you should have no problem making your business case stick to provide these services that NASA so desperately needs.

This is big government at galactic proportions.

This is big government at galactic proportions.
What do you mean? That's what CxP was 2 years ago. Anchor tenancy for commercial HSF is the solution. It's what we should have done long ago.
Check out the excellent comment from slowcooker.

Wow sounds like NASA wants to set up an arrangement with a "commercial" launch company similar/exactly like the one the Air Force has with ULA. As ULA's anchor tenant the Air Force subsidizes "standing army" costs to the tune of over a billion $ per year so ULA remains "viable".....govt-govt contractor business as usual disguised as "buying commercial".