“We need to reawaken in our nation the kind of can-do attitude that built the first atomic bomb, developed the first digital computers, and landed those first men on the moon, the cost be damned.”

Apparently you live in an un-innovative area of the U.S. Where I live we have a vibrant entrepreneurial community that takes the best of science, industry and education and spins out lots of innovations. And my community is not unique, as we are competing for the best and brightest with other such communities around the U.S. I know for certain that the recession never hit the software programming industry – there is little unemployment there.

Is innovation happening in aerospace? Yes. One large example is Boeing, who is pushing the boundaries of what can be done design-wise with a large non-aluminum airplane that must be mass-produced and durable. You don’t get that with high school dropouts, and programs like that are exciting to work on.

Medium sized aerospace companies like Orbital Sciences and Sierra Nevada Corp. have lots of exciting programs too, as do the various startups. So I think it’s more a matter of you not looking around than any real lack of “excitement”.

“It disturbs me that there has emerged in recent years this peculiar notion that we can only afford a space program on the cheap by enlisting a few billionaires…”

It disturbs me that you think it’s true. The “few billionaires” that you allude to are spending their own money to create aerospace products and services that can be used by many groups, including NASA. These individuals and companies are making it less expensive to get to and do things in space. Isn’t that the innovation that you have said is lacking?

What do you think Goddard would think of SpaceX lowering the cost to access space? Don’t you think he would cheer them on?

Your line of reasoning, that we must spend ever-increasing amounts of money on space, is a recipe for disaster. And it’s unsustainable in todays budget environment. I think you should go back and rethink what’s really important – doing more in space, or just paying more.

You need to come back to Earth a little while before embarking on such space projects.

More that five decades ago, Buckminster Fuller reminded us all that there is, and never will be, any shortage of wealth in the world to pay for such ambitious goals as space exploration when he declared that “wealth is merely energy compounded by ingenuity, and since by the conservation of mass-energy, energy can never decrease while ingenuity can only increase, total wealth can only increase.” It disturbs me that there has emerged in recent years this peculiar notion that we can only afford a space program on the cheap by enlisting a few billionaires who happen to have succeeded in making their wealth in completely unrelated fields to open up the space frontier for the rest of us by some combination of investing their own wealth together with a tiny amount of taxpayer money. While I sincerely hope they succeed, I still think that it is a cowardly way for a nation to run a space program. Further, I must note that none of the true space pioneers of of the 20th century including Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Robert Goddard, Sergei Korolev, or Wernher von Braun, were either billionaires or even successful businessmen. So far the only billionaires or millionaires who have actually flown in space have done so on Russian rockets that were designed under the regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!

“I’m NOT ANTI-NEWSPACE. I appreciate SNC developing DREAMCHASER a wonderful launch system but damn! Its taken 48yrs. to bring a USAF Boeing X-20 Dyno-soar back from historic archived file blueprint?”

Dream Chaser is based on the HL-20, not the X-20. Try to keep up.

The reason we’re regressing from the Shuttle is that we never realized how expensive the Shuttle was. That was a failure of leadership, but here we are, so in a way we’re resetting the clock by going back to what the incremental improvements are to 60’s generation designs – capsules and lifting bodies.

However complaining about “old tech” is like complaining that we should have fusion-powered flying cars instead of the internal combustion ones that still use rubber tires. Some things work so well that there aren’t lower cost alternatives.

“An inspirational space program…”

Oh, no, not another person that thinks space should be “inspirational”. Space is a huge place, and just like the not-so-huge place we live on today, you have to divine inspiration in your own way – don’t wait for others to define it for you.

I don’t need an “inspirational space program”, I just want one that does the most with the least money. The Moon was “inspirational” for about one landing, and then the rest of humanity figured out that every other landing was just work, and though watching others work can be interesting, we don’t have too much time in our lives for that.

An inspirational space program is about expanding space building, funding and using NEW EFFECTIVE CONCEPTS TECHNOLOGY not coddling a revisionist space program.

Why in heck are you debating the nuke cult? They are not in to debate technology but just to spread over your face whatever history they might know or not and the people who know or not. Same as any cult, be it Apollo, SLS, Shuttle, NTR…

The day they really want to have an argument is the day they will start learning technology and go for it. In the mean time they whine the others who actually do. And their arguments?

Whatever. I could have the same debate with a wall.

So you choose as your example to illustrate commercial operations two companies that are still flying TEST flights?

They have not started commercial operations. That would be like saying your project for a nuclear ship that is going to be flying cargo for 100 bucks a pound after the first test launch say.. why are you not flying once a week a already?

If you want an illustration of more commercial operations look to Orbital, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, not cherry pick two companies still running test flights.

“You mean as examples of commercial companies being it better at doing it “over and over and over again”

It’s funny how people that are against either A) Commercial Space, or B) SpaceX, tend to equate Commercial Space with only one company – SpaceX.

Reminds me of the saying “you can’t see the forest for the trees”.

I can talk all day about all the good things I think SpaceX is doing from a manufacturing and marketing standpoint, and I can also talk all day about all the good things that ULA, Orbital Sciences, SNC, Boeing, Blue Origin and XCOR are doing too. The only way we’ll have a robust space transportation system is by having more than one provider, and the more the better. Are you against that?

When are we going to be able to add an NTR company to that list? How come an NTR company isn’t chasing engine replacement opportunities like what XCOR is doing? Or rocket opportunities like SpaceX?

Some people see roadblocks, while others see opportunity. Which one are you?

“or perhaps the example of the crash of Blue Origin’s launch vehicle yesterday?”

You mean their internally funded sub-orbital test vehicle? You’re setting a pretty high bar for yourself, aren’t you? You guarantee that an NTR company will never suffer a failure during test? I doubt it.

If you actually read what Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos said, then you would know that failure does not end things for them. SpaceX has been the same way, and it’s a lesson you should learn too for your NTR efforts – hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Which at the very least means you better have deep pockets and a good incremental testing plan.

What’s holding YOU back? Fear of failure?

“What you are confused about is the difference between doing something for the first time, which is what NASA does best, and doing it over, and over, and over, which is what commercial companies do best.”

With so any issues to address, I will choose just this one. You mean as examples of commercial companies being it better at doing it “over and over and over again” the case of SpaceX’s two successful flights to date, or perhaps the example of the crash of Blue Origin’s launch vehicle yesterday?

You are right, I am confused by that argument.

“Further, I wonder if SpaceX would have achieved its initial successes quite so quickly if Elon Musk did not enjoy quite such close personal relationships with Lori Garver and others within the current administration?”

I know facts may get in the way of your silly proposition, but you should really look to see who awarded SpaceX their first, and to date largest, government contract. Since you seem to be researched-challenged, I’ll save you the trouble – Bush/Griffin.

Now how does your narrative play out?

“It particularly bothered me when Elon Musk so directly attacked Neil Armstrong for questioning the emerging consensus that NASA should cede its responsibility for building launch vehicles and crew exploration vehicles entirely to private sector companies such as his.”

You believe the fallacy that somehow commercial crew, which was proposed by Bush/Griffin in the FY06 NASA budget, is somehow forcing NASA to “cede its responsibility for building launch vehicles and crew exploration vehicles”. Can you point out where it says they are responsible for that in the NASA Charter?

Since February 2006 (Bush/Griffin again), NASA’s self-described mission statement is to “pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” I don’t see “operate an LEO shuttle service to the ISS” as part of that.

What you are confused about is the difference between doing something for the first time, which is what NASA does best, and doing it over, and over, and over, which is what commercial companies do best.

Travel to LEO is at the level where aerospace companies, which have always built NASA’s hardware, are able to build and operate their own spaceflight systems. Exploration continues to be an area that only NASA is interested in pursuing, so commercial aerospace will just continue it’s usual role of being the hardware builders, but with their launch, cargo and crew services, they can help NASA do more exploration while spending less money upfront.

Is this confusing to you?