I am mixing nothing up; I suspect you are the one mixed up. LEO is a dead end- there is nothing there but going around in circles. The interesting places and resources are all BEO. We can accomplish nothing by staying in LEO. Is that difficult to understand?

You’re mixing up every thing. Make your life easier and think LEO and BEO. LEO is better served by the private industry. BEO? No one really knows. There is no demonstrated need for an HLV for BEO. As for nukes? For now you can dream on as it is not anywhere close to happen.

Again: It is Commercials AND NASA, not OR! Is it that difficult to understand?

Unfortunately, the requirements for flying in deep space, namely HLV’s and nuclear energy, are beyond the ability of private companies like SpaceX, etc.

“Better served” means captivity in LEO for decades to come. I believe the planetary defense mission can bring DOD funding for deep space flight and re-energize HSF. But the key, as congress has doubtless been advised behind the scenes, is a HLV. And sidemount is the only good candidate at this point. Making Sidemount cargo only would be the best path to continue with commercial crew and get the U.S. into deep space.

A very good post indeed. I am glad to see that some of us can still think in those times of troubles. The politics of fear used for defense spending unfortunately is being expanded to the other sector of our lives for health care (death panels), NASA (China), etc. I believe this all what is left to the regular media to come up with an audience. The pundit soundbyte that in turn is used by our political class. It probably explains the emergence of the media on the Internet but it becomes more difficult to sort the “good” media. Interestingly enough I think the Internet has allowed to expose what the mainstream media agenda(s) is(are). In any case a good post.

I would like to add that as a pragmatist I think there is no one solution. For example, I believe today’s solution to health care in this country uses a single payer run by the government because of the failures of the private sector. On the other hand I believe that today NASA would be better served by the private industry. I also believe that there MUST NOT be any privatization of our military troops. Combat should not be handled by private outfits. It is our government responsibility no matter the cost, local, state and federal.

But with a little common sense we could be put on a new trajectory for the US to stay the world leaders on anything. The problem is that the politics of fears are hampering us, e.g. DHS.

Still, more observations that should be part of this discussion come to mind.

For one, deficit reduction has no well established number outside of context within a countries broader economics. The government of Japan, for example, already surpassed the amount of debt the US has when measured as a percent of Gross National Product. Current projections that cut the accumulated US “debt” (with cutting “yearly deficits” leading to the former), such as White House / OMB projections, get the value of US debt down to 65% by 2020 (external debt). Japan already surpassed 100%. So it’s not inherently obvious that bells and whistles go off at some value and cause action, actions like cutting spending, raising taxes, revamping systems, etc. It’s more complicated than that.

On a related note, people want services. A “great recession” aside, the demand for services that only the government can provide does not diminish when revenue slacks off due to hard times. This is what makes those analogies very weak – the ones about how if business is having a difficult time, that therefore the government must tighten its belt. When a business has a hard time the revenue drops because a buyer is saying they will do without the product. The buyer does not expect the product for free. Now if they had paid for it earlier in installments, or throughout their lifetime, that would be different. The analogy for the government (local, state, federal, etc) does not apply, as the desire, the demand, is there for the service. Ask if during hard times a person would want to save money by not sending their children to school, or by opting-out of police or firemen responding to a call? In return, they would keep their “property taxes” for the year. That’s not how it works. A large part of this local tax situation applies to the broader state and federal analogies. A significant part of the disconnect today in American politics is occurring between those who are glad to get a service, for a certain price (such as from the government when they are the only ones who can provide the service), and the more individualized person who feels they can go without (or who wants the service, just not the bill, or the broader responsibilities and constraints in a society, a real disconnect).

There is a school of thought that as societies get more affluent certain citizenry want things that only the government can provide, all other needs being met by the private sector. Unemployment insurance (a state/federal program) is one example. In exchange for a fee (through employers) that comes out of the business, and which likely reduces profits/wages (just as individual payments would), a person insures themselves for an undesirable event (being let go). So long as managed correctly there is no reason such an insurance concept is not infinitely sustainable, putting aside macro-economic disasters the long-wave of which only a public entity can ride out back into the black.

So going forward, I think it’s useful to ask what people will still want to buy (or create debt over) as well as how long such a decision is internal vs. a creature of events (economic, political, etc)? And to think in collective terms, as the vote in a democracy will entail some naturally being upset with the decisions of “society” as a democratic, majority/judicial process driven entity in a complex global web of economic factors.

As the baby boom and this country ages, more and more pressure will apply to Medicare, health insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc to control costs, or simply to accept declines in revenue on a per capita patient basis – for better outcomes. This is not a bad thing. There is no movement afoot in Canada or the UK to drop a national-type of health-care system. The wealth effect there, a bit less of it, and especially attitudes, simply lead to the purchase of a service being managed more-or-less fine, that only the government can provide efficiently – for all. Recent polling suggests this leaning to place a societies wealth into health care, to pay insurance fees or taxes (or to do so collectively, so it’s always there, healthy or not) will persist more easily than a desire for defense spending. Last weeks New York Times carried an interesting poll on these attitudes. Social security on the other hand has rather easy fixes ahead, like expansions in the tax base limit above income of $100K a year, or some means testing, etc. Factors affecting only very small numbers of the beneficiaries.

So there in national health (or in just Medicare at the Federal level), defense and social security you have really attacked the budget growth to get things back in balance as regards deficits and accumulated debt. Discretionary spending merely being more or less frozen for many years can achieve the “fit” into this broader debt management paradigm.

Of these 4 areas then, the most difficult to cut may be defense – I hate to say. Fear is such an easy justification, not requiring a model, complex economics discussions, or numbers or an understanding of complex programs and such. NASA, in a sense, may benefit by association from this resistance to DoD cuts. Yet I suspect that may only be temporary, as the final factor in all this is the macro-economic factors that can render all this moot if world leaders don’t think ahead, and lead together. China, the US, Europe, Japan, the Arab world – all have to come to grips with an economic balance that to be sustainable, likely means changing ways of life. Oh, and that will be upsetting…to everyone. We have grown so used to the disconnects…800 military bases worldwide, spending on defense as much as the next 20 countries combined (and most of those are our friends), middle-class jobs with high school education levels, spending not saving, consuming as if resources were infinite, a youthful demographic, a European demographic, and so on. All this will change…and is changing. And yet, there’s so much to look forward to in all this change. None of it is inherently bad. And I hope NASA leads the way as the positive in the possibilities.

Or as the Chinese saying went “may you live in interesting times”…

I am more worried about getting hit by a comet. NASA should get into the nuclear weapons business if they want a bigger budget. Obama wants to reduce the arsenal; put them out there on a spacecraft at a libration point to intercept and blast impact threats.

A much better way to spend 300 billion than another worthless weapons system.