No, it’s not. It’s the only policy for the “age [sic] of Austerity.” Which can the government better afford? A $10B+ Orion capsule? Or a $300M+ crew-rated Dragon capsule? (Or a $1B+ Dreamchaser HL-20 derivative?, etc.)

“Think before you post”

I am. You’re not. You harp on fiscal prudence, but apparently don’t take the time before you post to compare a few simple costs that differ by orders of magnitude.

Or maybe you don’t have the basic math skills to be able to understand the difference between $10 billion and $300 million? Or maybe you’re just extremely hypocritical?

Regardless, it’s your deficiency, not mine. Don’t blame me for your problems.

“you’re living in the past.”

Again, you’re the one clinging to $10B+ capsule programs developed in the old Apollo mode, not me.

“And, of course, SpaCEX has failed to expand its investor base beyond the circle of Musk’s cronies.”

Do you really think successful, independent investors would throw totals approaching a $100 million at a company just because they’re “cronies”?

Are you really that niave? Or do you just understand how much $100 million is?

“It’s a failing venture for long term space exploration planning.”

Yes, having an ETO system that costs an order of magnitude or two less than the alternative, including a capsule with TPS that’s rated for lunar and Martian reentry profiles and a mid-lift booster that can be affordably expanded for heavy lift, has no relevance to “long term [sic] space exploration planning” whatsoever.

Oy vey…

I hear a number of BEO fanboys say that a lot. yet when the ISS came within one vote of cancellation in 1993, I don’t recall anyone in Congress at the time saying anything to the effect of:

“We should be using the money for this station, to go back to the Moon and/or to Mars instead.”

Today, I still don’t hear that from the hallowed halls..

Terminating ISS would likely mean its support funding would go to deficit reduction, not another HSF project. (except maybe some of it going to an HLV with no funded mission)

It would also mean no ‘anchor tenant’ for commercial human space development, no government HSF with nowhere for the the Russians to take us, loud Constellation-like arguments about cancellation after ‘having spent so much on it already,’ (but with greater legitimacy, as ISS *is* up there and virtually complete…Constellation so far has spent much to produce little hardware), and foreign partners will be disinclined to work with us on major projects in the future (not that that’s always as desirable a thing as some believe, but it’s another argument)…

We’re ‘stuck’ in LEO largely through institutional, bureaucratic and political inertia and investment in the status quo, shaped by the Apollo mindset of BEO space flight…just as we were before ISS.

And just as we would be ‘after’ it, if that were the only thing that changed.

Not when the government is buying capabilities and services for ISS support. Goldman Sachs doesn’t pay for JSF development or for troop transport on United Airlines.

Not for long. Old policy for the age of Austerity. Think before you post- you’re living in the past. And, of course, SpaCEX has failed to expand its investor base beyond the circle of Musk’s cronies. It’s a failing venture for long term space exploration planning.

“Any BEO HSF plan that does not include an initial LEO phase to last until the BEO launcher and mission vehicles are ready to go is automatically worthless. Without the ISS, NASA would be looking at even further expense to build LEO mission vehicles to justify Orion’s continued existence.”

naa .. they would just do what they did with the shuttle and say they need a new space station. They would justify it by saying since the shuttle was so slow and expensive they would use cheap EELV’s and they could put up a new station for half the price of the old one.

Not when the government is buying capabilities and services for ISS support. Goldman Sachs doesn’t pay for JSF development or for troop transport on United Airlines.

Think before you post.

“Investors await.”

Investors aren’t “awaiting” anything.

Sierra Nevada has spent more on Dream Chaser than NASA to date:

“Mr. Sirangelo said the company had invested its own money into the Dream Chaser — indeed, more than the $20 million that NASA has provided.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

SpaceX investors have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to date on Falcon 9 and Dragon, again more than NASA’s $278 million COTS investment:

“Dragon space capsule in tow, the Falcon 9 represents a US$400 million investment from, among others, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who cofounded online payment company Paypal.”

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71408.html?wlc=1296571725

VC firms have invested:

“SpaceX Blasts Off With $50M”

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/11/11/the-daily-start-up-spacex-blasts-off-with-50m/

“SpaceX Receives $20 Million Investment From Founder’s Fund

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47

Some of these references are a couple years old. Try to keep up.

Sigh…

That’s been the rationale used for years by porking members of Congress. The existing infrastructure is a “national asset” and must be protected. They never explain why.

And then today our Fearless Leader posts this link to a WDAM TV article about Rep. Steven Palazzo touring NASA’s Stennis Space Center yesterday:

Palazzo said he will be looking out for Stennis’ best interest.

“It’s important to our nation. It’s a national asset,” Palazzo said. “We have the infrastructure here to be able to do anything we want to do. Some questions are what is the mission of NASA for the future, and I think it’s going to be space exploration and man flight.”

The porkers all seem to read the same playbook.

Let’s hope so. Particularly in the Age of Austerity. Private capital markets are the proper source for commercial crew funding. Investors await.

The reason why the Augustine Committee was so interested about having somewhere to go after the new crewed spacecraft was introduced was because how ridiculously drawn-out the development of a BEO cargo launcher, EDS and mission vehicle were becoming. It was rapidly becoming likely that, if ISS were abandoned, NASA would be looking at a ten year period during which the only thing that they could do was launch 14-day Apollo 7-style missions to LEO. Rightly, they suspected that HSF could not survive such an event.

Any BEO HSF plan that does not include an initial LEO phase to last until the BEO launcher and mission vehicles are ready to go is automatically worthless. Without the ISS, NASA would be looking at even further expense to build LEO mission vehicles to justify Orion’s continued existence. It was just another budgetary train-wreck to even consider doing without ISS for any part of the pre-BEO phase.

“They should stop paying these entrepreneurs for worthless junk and go with Sidemount.”

If you mean Orbital and SpaceX, NASA is paying them to perform a service, which is delivering supplies to an outpost. No different than what is done today at outposts around the world, including war zones.

Or, if you mean Blue Origin, Boeing, SNC, Paragon, and ULA, maybe you haven’t noticed, but besides the MPCV (Orion), America doesn’t have a domestic crew transportation system, and the MPCV is not meant for routine LEO transportation, so don’t you think it would be a good idea to have a home grown alternative to Soyuz?

Whoever you really are, you need to understand how incremental the improvements in space technology are, and that Apollo was an aberration, not the norm. Now maybe some future peril will threaten the Earth, and the U.S. will decide to build your 1,000 ton nuclear-powered spaceship. But until then, no one needs it, Congress won’t fund it, and you just sound like a spoiled child for continuing to say it’s the only thing that will be acceptable to you.