> The flaship demonstrations, for example, consisted of six discrete
> flight validation missions

really, if you going to call something flagship – it should be new and innovative or something

> == — a Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle,

IE a test craft to demostrate we can do experimentally what the Russians have been doing operationally since the ‘70’s. That’s not innovation – that’s embarrassing!!

> a Solar Electric Propulsion Stage,
Solar electric craft have been tested adn used since the ‘60’s ( The first experiments with ion thrusters were carried out by Goddard at Clark University from 1916–1917)
A working ion thruster was built by Harold R. Kaufman in 1959 at the NASA Glenn Research Center facilities. It was similar to the general design of a gridded electrostatic ion thruster with mercury as its fuel. Suborbital tests of the engine followed during the 1960s and in 1964 the engine was sent into a suborbital flight aboard the Space Electric Rocket Test 1 (SERT 1).

Some commercial sats use them, Deep space 1 used them. Artemis, Hayabusa etc etc..
> a Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Mission,

Been doing that for decades to. Never built up a cryo refueling platform, but that’s not worth bragging about as a flagship tech demonstrator

> an Inflatable Module Mission,

Like the Genesis modules Bigelow has had up for a couple years?

> an Environment Control and Life Support demo,

NASA’s studied and built demos of these for decades to.

> and a Aerocapture, Entry, Descent & Landing demo — ==

Hows this to differ from normal reentry, or previous aero capture tests?

Its also kind of trivia.

>== They have rockets that have reached orbit, and a manufacturing
> facility and contracts that will keep them in business for years to come.

The years to come part is far from certain.

> I think one of the good things about things like the exploration
> technology demonstration missions is that they “pay for themselves”
> in terms of benefits while at the same time making exploration easier.
> For example, FTD1, the advanced Solar electric propulsion and
> lightweight solar panel demonstration mission does a number of things all in 1 mission:

> – helps us start developing a space tug (the vehicle that delivers the
> SEP demonstrator)

To do what with? A tug isn’t a new idea that needs demoing.

>- demonstrates technology that’s of interest to the military (i.e. it delivers
> near-term national security benefits) — the solar array technology was
>developed by DARPA

So your demoing tech already developed adn tested by others.

>- demonstrates some autonomous rendezvous capabilities

So do the Russian cargo/tanker craft that supply the ISS and supplied MIr etc – back for 30 years?

>- demonstrates technology that can feed into more ambitious technology
>rounds later to enable fast astronaut trips (gathering engineering data
> during demonstrations that will be useful for operational missions)

Its old technology in commercial adn NASA use for decades. By the time we do sent astronauts to Mars, these versions will be as obsolete as the older versions used commerciall.

>- demonstrates technology that can, in the sort term, enable efficient
>delivery of cargo for astronauts

??

How ? Ion drives would be useful to ferry stuff to the station?

>- demonstrates technology that can be used by various commercial
>and government satellite missions

Actually they have been using this tech for decades – maybe this will be a better version (lighter or more durable) – but hardly a cutting edge advance.

>- sends science instruments to Mars/Phobos/Deimos as a side benefit

Thats new

> First even under the best of circumstances NASA cannot do a shuttle
> derived vehicle for under oh 10-14 billion dollars (that includes everything
> and I doubt that they can do it for that).
>
> On the other hand, a knock off of the Delta IV heavy with some cute
> things like propellent transfer (going up the hill) etc will come in at far less.
>
> There wont be 2-3 billion a year for HLV development.

> As the deficit grows and the folks on Capital Hill finally get religion
> about cutting it…they will look for things that are going nowhere.
> HLV at NASA will be one of them…==

Senate and congress seem to disagree. First, the amounts of money you are talking about are trivial to congress – and NASA’s popular enough that folks don’t want to kill it. A NASA that not only isn’t doing anything in space of public note, and isn’t even building something here on Earth to later do something of note, is pretty hard to fund – and they want to be able to fund it.

On to more serious matters:
Major Tom wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Concur My prognostication: #3 (See above.)

red wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“We can’t afford the Senate committee’s plans on NASA’s current budget.”
Congress: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Poor NASA. Meanwhile Sweden :0 is setting the benchmark on orbit.
http://www.weblab.dlr.de/rbrt/GpsNav/Prisma/Prisma.html

From “The Space Enterprise” by G Harry Stine :
NASA should not be permitted to become the operating agency for a space transportation system. Unfortunately as this is being written, this is exactly what is happening. But don’t blame the people at NASA; they are trying to save their jobs and their organisation because nobody has told them to proceed beyond the Space Shuttle. […] The very best thing that could happen in the next five years is for a private organisation to take over the operation of the Space Shuttle, allowing NASA to go back to the work they have proven they do best: exploration and technical R&D.”
Ace Books 1980

Synthesis:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana “Reason in Common Sense” [1906]
Shuttle redux.