You’re wrong about Falcon 9. Musk said several times it had been designed from start to ferry crew.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/09/air-force-spacexs-falcon-9-first-launch-planned-for-nov-29-.html

“SpaceX is owned by former internet tycoon Elon Musk. The Falcon 9 is a medium lift class rocket with nine Merlin engines. It is being designed to haul both cargo and crew into space, though SpaceX’s contract with NASA so far only covers cargo flights under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, or COTS, program.”

Do you know of OSP? Do you know of the early O’Keefe’s CEV Phase 1? In both cases EELVs were the LVs of choice for crew and cargo. Check it out. Optimized does not mean anything: You could optimize an EELV to deliver crew.

Oh well…

Ares I is specifically designed soley to transport crew safely to LEO. It has no other mission.

In contrast, the Delta II and Atlas V were designed to place small satellites in orbit. The Falcon 9 was originally designed as a reusable competitor for the EELV Delta and Atlas satellite launch market.

Cheers,
Nelson

Not sure where to start… But, human-launch-optimized? Optimized??? Any data supporting the “optimization”? And please let us know what it is that is optimized in Ares I to launch human. Optimized…

Oh well…

Kind of the reverse of the Arianne, which was originally designed for the ESA Hermes space plane, and instead earns it’s living performing multi- satelite launches.

Heavy lift makes sense to me. Being able to put 180,000 Kg in LEO with one Ares V lanuch instead of 7 Shuttle launches at 24,000 Kg each time has obvious advantages (time, reliability, logistics…).

I suspect that orbital space tourism might not become truely economical until we are able to launch a 747-sized ship with hundreds of passengers into orbit.

However, the devil is in the details.

Well and what if a commercial decides to make it to the Moon? NASA will not “allow” it? Do you think that they could not find astronauts to go to the Moon on a non-NASA ship?

NASA will “dictate” those missions that are NASA missions, but if someone wants to launch to say a Bigelow station then what?

No, in my first sentence I said “possibly an ISS manned rocket to commercial”

So, I think it could happen that they MIGHT allow crewed vehicles to commercial but just for LEO missions.

Deep space and heavy lift will be retained by NASA.

As far as launch sites: my opinion is that NASA will dictate where commercial CREWED vehicles will launch. If a man is on the rocket it will be launched KSC side pad A or pad B. No cape side launches for manned rockets.

Hmmm. Do you mean in the same way that NASA will not concede crewed vehicles to commercial?

As far as launch sites: Commercial will launch wherever it makes financial sense. If it is KSC then be it, but it might be from Kazakhstan or the North Pole if you see what I mean.

Heavy lift is not necessary for deep space, but as long as people continue to indulge themselves in this myth, NASA will retain its power to hold back the opening of the frontier.