blahblahblah More unsupported argumentation…

Oh well.

To anybody with business sense, yes. Indeed anybody with business sense can convince themselves of it with just a wee bit of web research — they don’t need me for it.

And of course you can prove all of this?

(1) When NASA funds more of the company’s development costs than the investors themselves. (2) When the company starts running a profit, with the revenues from Uncle Sugar exceeding the development costs, at least four years before they’ve launched a single payload for Uncle Sugar.

The incentives for investors to invest based on expectations of revenue and profit from NASA, not from private customers are quite obvious to anybody who has actually studied COTS and is not lacking in business sense. COTS is a slightly improved form of government contracting. That is all. It is not “buying tickets”, it is not “commercial”, it is certainly not “off the shelf” (COTS originally stood for “commercial off-the-shelf” and a few deluded souls still think that’s what it is).

How is investing private dollars in new companies “fighting for Uncle Sugar’s teat”? How is providing contracted services to the government “freeloading”?

If you think NASA relying more heavily on commercial space is a bad move, that’s fine. Make the argument.

But don’t slander entire industries with deragatory terms that bear no resemblance to reality. Take that ugliness elsewhere.

Ugh…

But, it’s not about old or new, it’s about a sustainable way to get astronauts to other places in our solar system.
So tugs are very usefull and it is an excellent concept to build upon. Instead of single-use space vehicles, get some vehicles up there that can be used for years. It will save money in the long run and you’ll have crafts ready for use.
I think we simply have to abandon the idea of building a few rockets for one goal, and then go there once or twice a year. It’s about having crafts and technologies available to get us anywhere we want in the solar system in a practicle amount of time.

Let’s drop “commercial” from this. It’s a bunch of freeloaders fighting for the Uncle Sugar’s teat. SpaceX is one of them.

“It seems the Russians are going the Obama route by developing in Space vehicles like orbital tugs and transfer vehicles, to … go to the moon.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/russia-to-develop-low-lunar-or.html

So, the sooner NASA develops those technologies and an HLV, the better.”

Its no good Frank. John wants to be the strategic underdog. He has the shrewd idea that if the US lags behind in a space technology gap for the next 10-15 years, that will really wake this country up.

hah. you obviously have not been around long. This is the “three point” plan for saving every NASA program.

Cant stop already spent a lot of money (so we have to spend a lot more)…the program has political support (demonstratably not accurate…the program is dying)…and we will all be “old” twenty years from now when technology from the 70’s is suppose to take us to the Moon.

LOL

Robert G. Oler