SLS and MPCV/Orion will not only survive but thrive, because it represents experience, means jobs and a future.

At least two of those points are dead wrong. There is no meaningful “experience” in “evolving” the existing Shuttle architecture into a wholly different one to the tune of tens of billions; you could start from scratch just as easily. SLS/MPCV will certainly not be the future, as the only source of propellant for either will be Earth.

Commerical HSF does not- because they have flown nobody; meanwhile, the government has, successfully, for over 50 years.

Just about every nook and cranny of the “government” HSF is littered with contractors. Tell me again how commercial has no experience?

Once again, right on point.

The creature makes no arguments — just boneheaded assertions. It’s one of those idiots that thinks that nothing can ever be done for the first time.

Even so, your “they won’t fly because they never have” logic is truly bone-headed. As I’ve said before, in 2005 all the chattering class said SpaceX would never launch anything. When Falcon 1 flew they scoffed at Falcon 9. When that flew, they balked at Dragon. With Dragon to ISS on the calendar for later this year, expect the goal posts to shift again soon. At each of those points precisely your argument has been made: They won’t, because they haven’t.

I had similar thoughts over at Open Market yesterday.

“NASA’s contribution to the super committee budget hounds will be the JWST. Its not needed.”

That depends on whose needs you’re referring to.Yes, it may ultimately be cancelled, but neither the scientists, engineers and technicians involved in its development, nor the scientists expecting to use it, regard JWST as only a bone to throw away, in hopes of justifying something far more expensive, and far less justifiable.

“SLS and MPCV/Orion will not only survive but thrive, because it represents experience, means jobs and a future.”

So, none of those things will ever, ever be a result of Commercial Crew, is that what you suggest? No ‘experience,’ no jobs, no future? People are earning paychecks on Commercial Crew development, as we speak. It’s just not a standing army in critical states/districts, they hire only as many as they need, like any pruvate business. Which brings me to…

Though I’m as much for reducing unemployment as anyone, since when did the number of people employed in a major technological development become the figure of merit, instead of bringing in that project successfully, and within schedule and budget? (yes, I really know the answer, I hinted at it in the previous paragraph, I just want to see if you’ll say it)

“Commercial HSF does not- because they have flown nobody…”

Yet.

When does SLS expect to? What will you say if a commercial entity puts someone in LEO, before SLS even flies unmanned? Will there be a raising of the bar of what constitutes success?

“…meanwhile, the government has, successfully, for over 50 years.”

Again, define success. Certain goals were achieved, reaching the Moon (though not in a way that we could afford to continue) ‘before the decade is out,’ and before the Soviets, chief among them. But various other NASA HSF projects, before, during and after Apollo, were also cancelled before ever flying anyone (some deserved to be cancelled, some should have been operational today), and lives have been lost in several programs that were not.

For Commercial Crew, ‘success’ is putting people in LEO for re-supply and crew rotations at space stations* and returning, at a significantly lower cost than we’ve seen to date. Though the Space Shuttle was a valiant attempt, in 50 years, NASA has yet to show success at this.

* Note the plural. Yes, ISS is the ‘anchor customer’ to help break the ‘which comes first, commercial HSF, or commercial orbital destinations’ chicken-egg conundrum, but ultimately would become an increasingly smaller fraction of the business…

“Even so, your “they won’t fly because they never have” logic is truly bone-headed.”

The real irony is that DCSCA’s arguments are like him telling von Braun that “man has never flown to the Moon, so therefore we never can“. He doesn’t understand “new” things…

The last 30 years of which has been on the same vehicle, which we just cancelled. At least SpaceX has built and launched something new in my lifetime.

Even so, your “they won’t fly because they never have” logic is truly bone-headed. As I’ve said before, in 2005 all the chattering class said SpaceX would never launch anything. When Falcon 1 flew they scoffed at Falcon 9. When that flew, they balked at Dragon. With Dragon to ISS on the calendar for later this year, expect the goal posts to shift again soon. At each of those points precisely your argument has been made: They won’t, because they haven’t.

And while they have been behind schedule, they’ve far outperformed the large and growing list of paper rockets NASA has put on the table since Challenger.

“SLS wont survive the super committee. It is in the “end game” now… RGO”

NASA’s contribution to the super committee budget hounds will be the JWST. Its not needed. SLS and MPCV/Orion will not only survive but thrive, because it represents experience, means jobs and a future. Commerical HSF does not- because they have flown nobody; meanwhile, the government has, successfully, for over 50 years.

When a conservative administration takes a stand AGAINST crony capitalism, I’ll be damn impressed. They pick winners just as much as Dems do. They just pick different ones. The examples are numerous and stretch back to the early days of our current two party system and beyond, and neither party has demonstrated any more willingness to part ways with corporate favoritism than the other. I’ve long ago given up hope that anyone will ever follow through with that promise. But by all means keep believing. Perhaps they can run on a platform of Hope and Change, too. That, too, happens every time a president runs with the differences being entirely semantic, and with the same results.

“Falcon Heavy close to $1,000/lb.

Please stop misleading readers and stating such things with confidence. SpaceX has only built and flown a two F9 cores, and haven’t even developed the necessary fuel management systems for the F9 Heavy. They have no idea how much it costs. Consistently low balling estimates, and failing to deliver, (which is what they have done to date) can do harm to the launch industry.”

Your ‘rebuttal’ entirely misses the point. No matter how much F Heavy (the dropped the 9 a while back, btw) costs, it will be far, far lower than the cost/kg of SLS. And while the cost of F1 and F9 at first flight were higher than when they were first announced, they weren’t dramatically higher. Indeed the increase was negligable compared to the cost increase on the Delta or Atlas series. It was statistically insignificant compared tho the ever inflating cost/kg for Shuttle and Constellation. I can’t imagine SLS will come in cheaper than initial estimates. That would essentially be the first time in the history of spaceflight by any company or organization that such a feat was achieved.

Actually, while opinion certainly makes it onto Wiki far more frequently than many would like, it’s actually strictly against Wikipedia policy. As is calculating numbers based on prior published results. It’s considered “original research” and is one of the central policies that allows Wikipedia to function to whatever extent it does. Wiki editors spend a considerable amount of personal, unpaid time cleaning up all of the opinion on the site. Quite the task with more than 3 million articles on the English site alone. Please don’t advocate to make their job harder.