Musk isn’t reliant on the government for the continued success of his business. He’s also got commercial contracts. His commercial contracts are sufficient to keep his business viable, just smaller.
Stupid is as stupid – well – is!

SpaceX has plenty of business without NASA funding. Please stop flaunting your ignorance.

Certainly….I say cut funding for all space programs, especially commercial space and the ISS

See how long your beloved Musk stays in business.

With the Tea Partiers in Congress, NASA and its contractors need something to replace the global warming hysteria. Something more “national security”-like. So we’re all about to die from meteor showers, run for cover!

BTW, in case astronaut fans feel tempted to join such disaster-mongering in the hopes that it will prevent their heroes from being pink slipped, any such hype would benefit robotic science (probably Boehner’s GRC would get a big role). The money would have to come out of HSF.

Well, Gary Church, how are you? Still trying to make a case for Sidemount, HLV, and ATK? Why would our government go that route during times of financial difficulties? It didn’t make sense before the midterms and it certainly doesn’t make sense now.

All your points have been met with valid (and better) counterpoints, but still you persist. That’s OK I guess, but to make like you’re arguing against “regulars” when you are as much a regular as anyone around here is highly amusing.

Anyway, carry on!

By putting an end to constant redesigns to accommodate Ares I’s performance and launch environment, Orion on a Delta IV would be marginally less expensive. But we’re not going to cut Orion’s cost in half or save multiple billions of dollars. Orion’s cost is driven more by its size, requirements, contract structure, and NASA oversight. And if NASA doesn’t take advantage of the flexibilities in its 2010 Authorization Act, Orion’s size and requirements are only going to grow as it morphs into the MPCV, while still being stuck with the same contract structure (and likely NASA oversight).

If I were king, I’d forgo Orion altogether, and separate ETO requirements and elements from in-space requirements and elements. The former is better handled by simple, commercial taxis like Dragon, while NASA needs as much flexibility as possible to build affordable, reliable, and long-lived in-space transport systems. Orion tries to do both, and as a result, does neither well and at great cost.

FWIW…

SRBs are not first, or core, stage engines. They’re parallel, or stage zero boosters.

“The kerolox project should get the axe.”

Yes, why would anyone want to replace the complexity and high costs associated with maintaining two separate rocket engine production lines with a single, simplified, lower cost rocket engine?

“What will go on the second stage or the third stage is anyone’s guess.”

LH2 or hydrazine, depending on size. Maybe CH4 if you want to go green and avoid cryogenics. It’s not too hard to figure out.

“I would put Shannon in charge of a sidemount HLV cargo version”

Why? Sidemount can’t meet the payload requirements in the authorization bill. And Shannon is an operator, not a developer.

“Some DOD funds for planetary defense could make this happen.”

If by “planetary defense”, you mean redirecting incoming NEOs, none of these systems support that.

FWIW…

RP is denser than LH2 and non-cryogenic, requiring smaller propellant tanks and no insulation or thermal control. This results in substantially smaller, simpler, and less costly stages, especially for first-stages. RP engines are also generally simpler, easier, and less costly to develop and build than LH2 engines. Finally, with no cryogenic issues or systems, RP ground ops are simpler and less costly than LH2 ground ops.

There is a lot more to rocket engine and launch vehicle design than Isp. You might try to learn about it before making such stupidly strident statements.

“The new congress will not ignore the fact that we are spending billions to prop up the Russian space program on the ISS while they arm Iran and other miscreants around the world.”

Yes, a Republican House probably will prefer to pay domestic companies to supply ISS cargo and crew transport instead of paying RSA for Soyuzes and Progresses.

“If George Bush’s House agreed to deorbit ISS in 2015″

Neither chamber of congress has ever passed legislation to deorbit ISS.

Don’t make stuff up.

ESA hasn’t made up its mind yet and it doesn’t have funding for a new vehicle. Germany is dead set against Ariane 6, and I believe they would prefer funding for ARV instead. France wants a staged combustion LOX/LH2 vehicle without solids and Italy probably wants a bigger version of Vega, say an SRB as a first stage, then a Vega solid first stage as a second stage and then a liquid upper stage, perhaps the Ariane cryogenic upper stage, perhaps something derived from the yet to be developed Lyra upper stage. Nobody seems to have a HC first stage as their first preference, even though it might make a lot of sense technically.