Newt Gingrich met with Zubrin in 1994…..

“It is to him”

Again you demonstrate reading comprehension – whatever good or bad things I think about Musk or SpaceX is not influenced by his desire to travel to other planets.

My only concern is whether SpaceX is lowering the cost to access space. Development of vacation destinations will soon follow if costs are lowered far enough, but they will never happen if costs stay at current levels.

“because it’s part of his PT Barnum sales pitch”

You seem to be oblivious to the world you live in – it’s filled with advertising and “forward looking statements”. If you’re having problems discerning fact from fiction, or in this case personal goals from corporate ones, then I suggest you seek counseling.

And regarding the PT Barnum angle, you’re also apparently oblivious to the fact that SpaceX only gets paid for what they do on a contract, not what they say or attempt to do, which is the complete opposite of what Barnum did (he took people’s money before they saw the show).

You know, I was serious when I said you need to get out more – those stale NASA Apollo manuals you read every night are affecting your perception of the world…

It is to him- because it’s part of his PT Barnum sales pitch. The only Mars he’ll be retiring at is a pleasant hamlet named Mars, Pernnsylvania.

“Some people have suggested that “commercial” space companies don’t need NASA … but NASA needs them.”

I guess I’m not “some people”, since I’ve never suggested what you’re saying.

What I want to see is NASA handing over routine work to the private sector, and have them stay out on the pointy end of technology development and exploration.

For instance, there is no reason NASA needs to be it’s own transportation company – it has no inherent skill-sets that make it better than commercial equivalents, and in fact it lacks the skills and abilities to operate routine transportation in a cost-effective and safe way.

Some of what I’m suggesting is along the lines of what Schmitt has suggested, but at this point I don’t see a NASA re-org as the first priority. I also don’t see it happening anytime soon, especially due to all the other national distractions that Congress and the Administration are dealing with. It would take an event relating to NASA to focus everyones attention, and those are kind of hard to predict in advance.

Put his suggestions on the pile with all the other sincere suggestions.

“Since Elon Musk has talked about “retiring on Mars,” I would think the “commercial” advocates would welcome Schmitt’s proposal”

Where Elon Musk retires is not my concern. If we continuously lower the cost to access space then most of these issues we debate will go away. That’s where I put my efforts.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your willingness to think about (and propose) alternative ideas and concepts. Your civility reflects your maturity and professionalism.

I posted Harrison Schmitt’s proposal for a new space agency in the hope that it would generate some intelligent discussion — especially since it represents a thoughtful attempt to restructure America’s space program in a way that recognizes the differing goals of disparate groups.

Some people have suggested that “commercial” space companies don’t need NASA … but NASA needs them. Schmitt’s plan would give those folks a chance to prove their point because there would be no NASA. Firms like SpaceX would have to stand on their own — relying purely on commercial contracts and private investors to keep them in business.

Well … not exactly. Schmitt’s plan would also present opportunities for “commercial” space companies to work with the new NSEA in developing the rockets, spacecraft and infrastructure to support programs and missions in deep space (both human and robotic). But instead of being forced to choose one path or the other (or waiting for one path to become fully developed before pursuing the other), the United States and its international partners could be following two convergent paths at the same time. In other words, while commercial enterprises such as SpaceX and Bigelow are busy testing new hardware in Low Earth Orbit, NSEA would be laying the foundations for outposts on the Moon, visits to asteroids and missions to Mars. Much of NSEA’s early activities would no doubt employ robotic spacecraft to survey those destinations.

Since Elon Musk has talked about “retiring on Mars,” I would think the “commercial” advocates would welcome Schmitt’s proposal … or at least find some common ground in it. His plan would keep the International Space Station operational throughout the decade. And it does not rule out the possibility of turning over the ISS to the private sector if commercial enterprises are willing and able to replace aging modules to keep it operating beyond 2020.

I believe Harrison Schmitt’s new space agency would spark the imagination of a new generation of explorers — people who not only dream of seeing Earth from an orbiting spaceliner, but who also wonder: “What lies beyond?” As mission commander Mark Kelly said when Endeavour left the pad on its final flight, “It’s in the DNA of our great country to reach for the stars and explore. We must not stop.”

“Falcons are not at production rate yet, ULAs birds are. Manufacturing 101 my friend.”

A couple of points.

The first is that SpaceX factors production ramp-up into their numbers, since they are selling product and services many years out. That is Manufacturing 101 my boy.

The second is that Musk stated at the Falcon Heavy announcement that the company grew quite a bit over the past year or so, but that it was leveling out to concentrate on manufacturing. If you look at the SpaceX website you can even see what skills they are still hiring, which at this point is only about 40 people specifically for manufacturing. They’re good for another year or two until they start ramping up for Falcon Heavy and commercial crew, which brings in additional revenue to cover the ramp-up costs.

“But the difference between the cost structures of USA, ULA and SpaceX are not as different as they appear if all of them where operating under the same contracting ground rules, that’s all I’m saying.”

Believe what you want, but all I can tell you is that SpaceX doesn’t have legacy facilities, cost structures and other liabilities to worry about, and they are not doing full-up government contracting, which adds it’s own additional costs.

A simple internet search concerning the COTS program explains how NASA views the difference, so maybe you should read up on that.

“Second the lack of process control paper work ‘is’ a serious concern”

Why do you keep bringing this up? Was this a dream you had, or is this something that has been documented? Document it or drop it.

“Third, Concern ULA not being allowed to ‘win’ the bid on CRS is exactly what happened, whether you accept it or deny it is your choice.”

It’s not me saying this, it’s Michael Gass, the ULA President & CEO. ULA only does launches. It’s parents (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) have their own divisions for selling payload services, which is what they did on the COTS bid.

The internet is a wonderful tool – learn to use it so you stop looking so ignorant.