“Try Space X closes it’s doors like all the other space startups and Congress roundly denounces the money and time wasted on the ISS and CCdev.”

Without the CRS contract, SpaceX still has $1.8B worth of commercial launch backlog, so why would they go out of business?

Ending the ISS means an end to our only permanent location in space, so why is that good? It’s also the only permanent location in space for many other countries, so ending the ISS would mean less trust with the U.S. on any future HSF endeavors. Are you an isolationist too?

The CCDev program also includes Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp., both long time aerospace companies. Why wouldn’t you be rooting for them to succeed? Why don’t you like the idea of commercial spacecraft lowing the cost to access space for humans and cargo alike?

As much as you claim to be a space supporter, you only want to support space efforts if they include a massive rocket that send people far away using nuclear power. That’s kind of limiting. It also doesn’t support humanity populating space, since you don’t want anyone in the part of space closest to the Earth.

In short, you don’t make much sense.

Fantasy. Try Space X closes it’s doors like all the other space startups and Congress roundly denounces the money and time wasted on the ISS and CCdev.

“…and will continue to cost $6 billion a year to operate.”

No, more like half that. But then again, we always knew you were terrible with numbers…

Oh those ‘crazy’ taxpayers… An anecdote– on July 4, as luck would have it, the ISS was passing almost directly overhead at our locale- just before the local fireworks display downtown so it was a good, clear 4 minute pass. Made mention of it to the surrounding folks, parents and kids alike, and every one looked up, some with binoculars, some with their naked eyes, and expressed national pride on the Fourth of July — and wonder at the achievement of their country as the thing made its steady transit across the twilght. Then a few wondered outloud– “what the heck are they doing up there, anyway?” Next, the cost entered the conversation– made mention thay that ‘bright dot’ cost $100 billion bucks and will continue to cost $6 billion a year to operate. The parental ‘ooohs’ and ‘ahhhs’ changed to ‘huhs?’– and ‘WTFs??’— and most notably, ‘what a waste!!” Yeah, it’s ‘crazy’ how Americans take pride in their space program for what it can do– and not really know what it actually does.

“I thought that Bolden made that pretty clear this morning.”

As you know, Congress can be told something, but that doesn’t mean that they understand or believe it.

I’m just surmising what could happen if the Congressional momentum for the SLS continues on regardless of the undeniable lack of need. That is unless it experiences it’s own “bridget to nowhere” moment, but I think everyone is focused on much bigger issues right now.

I thought that Bolden made that pretty clear this morning.

This is exactly the kind of idiotic reasoning that got the USG into the financial problems they’re in.

PRIOR TO 2015

CCDev is underfunded, but the four CCDev-2 spacecraft continue to be funded (i.e. CCDev-3). If one is cut, likely it will be either Dream Chase or Blue Origin’s biconic capsule because of cost concerns.

Boeing continues to make progress on their CST-100, but don’t commit enough internal funds to greatly accelerate the development schedule.

SpaceX completes the COTS program and make 10 CRS deliveries to the ISS by the end of 2014. Falcon 9/Dragon Cargo performance is validated, and any needed improvements are identified and likely incorporated by CRS flight 10.

By this time, if the SLS and MPCV have survived, it will become clear that a combination SLS/MPCV will not be ready until well into the next decade, and since NASA has had to start extending it’s agreements for more Soyuz flights, Congress realizes that Commercial Crew is really the only way forward to support the ISS with American transportation.

Congress defunds more science programs in order to cover the SLS and MPCV cost overruns, but does provide more money to the CCDev program to accelerate a commercial crew system. The CCDev program is reduced to two participants, with SpaceX being one, and likely Boeing being the other.

SpaceX is far enough along that they can commit to being ready in two years, and if Congress provides enough guaranteed business, will commit to $140M per flight ($20M/seat). Boeing will say they need three years, and will commit to $280M per flight, or $40M/seat, with a minimum number of flights. Russia has already raised their prices to $70M/seat, up from the current $63M, so Congress authorizes NASA to split the ISS business between SpaceX and Boeing to ensure competition.

AFTER 2015

The SLS is cancelled after it becomes clear that it is consuming too much of NASA’s budget, and is both over-budget and behind schedule. Oh, and they finally figure out that there are no payloads for it to launch.

The MPCV is shifted over to a common payload interface so it can launch on Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy. Added to other delays it has experienced, the first unmanned launch date is now forecasted for 2019.

SpaceX and Boeing start successfully flying their crew systems, Bigelow announces a 2017 launch date for it’s first BA-330 (with another to follow), and suddenly everyone in Congress congratulates themselves for being the most ardent supporters of free enterprise in space.

The MPCV is de-funded, and Congress starts funding the Nautilus-X, which will use modified versions of commercial crew capsules for LEO-L1 transportation and lifeboat duty.

My $0.02

“Rep. Hall, like Rep. Wolf, is fighting the President’s numb-skull space policy not because he has a NASA Center in his district, but because he deeply believes that the Presidemt (sic) and his space policy troupe are dead wrong. ”

not really. RAlph is an old fool who gets a lot of campaign dollars from the good folks who are the contractors for NASA. He thinks that the Chinese are going to take over the Moon…RGO