Here is my web-site – it support services (http://24×7-nationwide-it-support-Services.blogspot.com/2013/12/it-support-services.html)

“…by next year the commercial crew situation will be sorted out enough to know if your view dominates (100% government) or was just wishful thinking.”

I think it may be sooner than that, especially with the budget crunch coming up.

So far the Tea Party wing of the Republican party has not shown any interest in re-living Constellation or any other grand plans, and with commercial space making lots of good progress, Congress will start wondering why NASA is being told to build a launcher & capsule that don’t have a funded mission.

Show me the document where SpaceX DEMANDED contracts and subisdies?

You certainly hold strong views, but they are conflicted.

On the one hand you like to point out that the government spending is “borrowed at 42 cents of each dollar spent“, but instead of encouraging the private sector to create jobs (and tax revenue), you place your faith in a capsule with no mission, and 100% funded by those same borrowed dollars. Why do you believe that government is the answer?

And regarding the ISS, it represents not only a $100B investment that you gleefully want to throw away, but it also represents the only funded mission for NASA and U.S. citizens. You would rather reduce our presence in space from over 1,000 days a year (3 U.S. astronauts on the ISS), to at most 80 days (an MPCV mission)? Hard to understand how that is better for HSF overall.

Luckily Congress doesn’t agree with your views (nor I obviously), and by next year the commercial crew situation will be sorted out enough to know if your view dominates (100% government) or was just wishful thinking.

Signing off on this thread…

Re: ISS 2015-2020. No, you miss the point- that’s the thinking in play these days. It’s on the down hill track to splash. Forget about it in planning. It represents the past and any capital investments, public or private, for it are a waste. There are a dozen people there now at government expense (an expense of which 42 cents on the dollar is borrowed) and nobody knows what they’re doing, what they’ve accomplished since its elements were under assembly and what possible rationale there can be for funnelling billions more (billions BTW,currently borrowed at 42 cents of each dollar spent) into it with no ROI financial or scientific to the Treasury. It’s a white elephant; a make work project for the aerospace industry since the late 80s which has reached the end of the gravy train. It has no value as a way-station for BEO missions which as of now do not exist nor have any funding. The only immediate hope of any HSF future in that arena is Orion. The ISS a monument to government waste; a techno-luxury of past planning from a different economic era in a time when Americans are looking to cut this kind of waste and fund necessities for our times. It is obtuse for this era of American history. A space station is simply not a necessity without any commitment to an Orion-styled spacecraft and the sooner America disengages from it economically, the better. It’s the only turkey you’ll ever see fly.

“Everything you say hinges on ‘next year’ and time is not an ally in this instance for space operations”

NASA has their crew needs taken care of through 2015 (Soyuz), so there is no rush to develop commercial crew. SpaceX could certainly upgrade their Dragon for crew within 3 years, and they will have lots of Dragon cargo flights to use for validation. You still haven’t made the case for why Dragon can’t do crew. Why?

Even Boeing can step up to build CST-100 and fly it within 3 years, as Atlas V can do test flights without modification, and adding human-rating to Atlas V is a known quantity that is already being validated with CCDev work.

“Musk is not expanding his investor base and attracting new interest…”

Why does he need to? They have customers paying them, they have been profitable for 4 years, and the only large project left (Dragon Crew) is an incremental evolution of an existing product. Of course once they IPO, your whole argument goes away.

“‘commercial space’ is ‘required’ to reach that milestone for a place at the table”

It looks like you keep creating fictitious milestones for everyone. All commercial space has to do is run a profitable business. Beyond that, everything else is bonus.

NASA is the one that lacks choices, since it currently relies on just one provider for keeping crew at the ISS (Russia’s Soyuz), which is part of the reason why Congress created the law stating that commercial crew is to be the primary method of supporting the ISS. Whether that’s SpaceX, Boeing, SNC or whoever doesn’t matter, it just matters that the operations transfers from a government entity (NASA) to a commercial one.

Your focus on SpaceX is missing the forest for the trees, since it’s a commercial crew system (more than one) that is the goal, not just one company.

“Government investment in Orion as a GP spacecraft makes more sense for mid and long term planning”

It’s funny how in one place you rail against the national debt, but in another you’re giddy over government spending on something that by law is only a backup for commercial services, but otherwise doesn’t have a funded need. How is that fiscally responsible?

“Re-ISS splash- they were talking 2015 just a few years ago.”

So you missed the whole 2011 NASA Authorization Act where they extended the ISS to at least 2020?

Where are you reading that they are going to splash it after 2020?

“as America disengages from economic commitments to the ISS through the decade”

I guess this is your opinion, but so far Congress has not agreed with you. Time will tell.

“Musk’s funding is chiefly from his circle of cronies and his own $.”

Money is money – it doesn’t matter where it comes from. Startups, which is what SpaceX was when they received the investment, don’t get money from a wide circle of people, so what do you expect until they IPO?

“He’s not really expanding his investor base…”

Sure, at least until they IPO. SEC rules impose certain limits on the number of investors non-public companies can have (Facebook ran into this problem recently), so they wouldn’t have tried for a large base of investors until they IPO. But keep in mind also, that when they IPO, they will have a plan for the money they take in, which will be interesting.

Next year is going to be an interesting year, and one where you’ll find out whether you’re right or not. All things considered, I don’t think you will. We’ll revisit this next year too.

“Dragon has no ECS for crewed flight.”

Yet, but then again, there is no requirement for crew flights yet. However, once Congress funds the Commercial Crew program, then that will change.

“a space station scheduled to splash by 2020”

You keep saying this – can you point to legislation approved by Congress for this, or is this just your “hope”?

“particularly as a redundancy to the tried and true Soyuz”

Once an American alternative is available, the “Buy American” type legislation kicks in, and NASA is obligated to buy from an American crew provider. The other ISS partners are not so obligated, so Soyuz will still get business for ISS needs, but the first American company will be in a good position.

“it will never be profitable and depends on government contracting”

“Never” is a long time. You also don’t know what their pricing will be, which heavily influences eventual profitability. Regarding government contracting, how is that any different than what Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK or literally thousands of NASA government contractors do? Do you expect NASA to do everything themselves, without using contractors to save the taxpayer money?

“Cargoed, fine. Crewed, no way. Won’t happen”

There is a bigger need for crew alternatives than cargo, so it looks like the crew is a better bet. We can revisit this next year, and see who’s right.