“I’m just pointing out that if Congress directs NASA to put Orion on an EELV and appropriates the necessary funds, they have to do it.”

There are three “if’s” in that statement:

1. Congress directs NASA to use an EELV – No current legislation has this, and it being in Senator Shelby’s jurisdiction, you would think he would be the sponsor.

2. Congress directs NASA to finish the Orion MPCV for crew operations, not just lifeboat – IF Delta IV Heavy is the launcher, then Orion can finally stop being changed, so it would be build-able. As an LEO taxi, however, Orion is really expensive, both in capsule cost & launcher costs (D-IVH is $300M/flight).

3. Congress appropriates the necessary funds – So far, Constellation was seriously shortchanged by Congress and Bush, so the track record is not good. On top of that, the Senate Bill was only allocating $4.1B vs the $5.9B Griffin last asked for. And Griffin’s budget only supported a 2017 operational date, so the $1.8B shortfall is not going to speed things up.

Conclusion:

Based on your Congressional wishlist, it looks like we’re going to be using the Russians for the ISS taxi duties for a couple extra years. Is this what you really want??

Also, your government solution is one accident away from program shutdown, just like Challenger/Columbia – it’s not redundant. Is that what you really want???

If you don’t want your tax dollars going overseas, and you want redundant access to space, then you better start advocating for a commercial solution.

“Space entirely commerical?”

It works for the DOD – industry builds the stuff, and the government pilots fly them. Some of the same aircraft types are sold to commercial firms to fly too, and no one raises any issues with that.

What Congress is crying about is pork, not that Boeing can’t be trusted to build a 60’s era capsule.

“there are two Congresscritters one can expect to vote against any NASA bill”

Out of 435 Representatives, I’m sure there are even more. Maybe you didn’t know this, but only a 218 need to vote “Yes”…

Space entirely commerical? Try selling that to Congress. Incidentally, there are two Congresscritters one can expect to vote against any NASA bill, regardless of how good it is: Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) (Liberal with a capital L) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), or “Doctor No”. (votes against anything not in the Constitution-NASA’s not mentioned, so he votes against it)

All you assertions corrected by this writer from a recommended variety of sources. Sources including presidential libraries, memoirs etc., with decisions referenced in the context of the times they were made. Get a library card, Tom.

But this is figuratively and literally old history. We know you're an evangelical proponent of commercial space. We know you're a SpaceX apologist– or cheerleader– depending on your POV. Rest assured if SpaceX ever gets someone up around and down safely, the crowds will cheer with you. Until that day, the world, the space community, skeptics in Congress and in the investor class await your success.

DSCSA, if you are going to make a point, it is up to you to provide your specific source alongside your point, not say “it’s out there somewhere” or “for the uneducated, it’s fairly easy, though time consuming, to look up” and expect that to be adequate.

Whether or not anyone thinks Major Tom is correct in his points, at least he is providing his sources inline with his points, including ones directly from NASA. You are not doing this. That is the problem.

You can’t expect everyone else to go searching for where you got your points. No one is going to spend that time, nor is it their responsibility. It is your responsibility to show the specific source of a point you are making. No one else’s.