“However if you really dig into the history of spaceflight…”

=yawn= You’d learn that over the past 80 years of modern rocketry, it has been governments in various guises, for military and geo=political purposes, , not private enterprised, for profit entities, which have stepped up and moved the technology forward. Private enterprise has always been a follow along, cashing in where it could. Every time the opportunity for private enterprise to invest and take a leading role- they’ve balked and let governments carry the load, socializing the risk on the many. Because there’s a minimal market with virtually no ROI. That’s why governments do it. Class dismissed.

“A lot of that is being driven by the media narrative”

No it’s not. Gingrich broached the moon base concept. SNL followed his lead and made it into as punch line. The candidates pitch, the media swings. This week, Romney’s fed the beast. Think of what could be made of Davy Crockett or could it be Davy Rocket– King of the Final Frontier.

This is getting completely off topic, but please stop repeating ignorance and idiocy, and supporting the media narrative, even if it is your specialty.

The engineering success isnt really the issue. That’s a given. But in its current configuration, it’s not a cost-effective investment as an integral element of a space exploration plan per von Braun’s vision– as originally proposed to Congress in August, 1969. When revisited in the Reagan days of the mid 80s, it was morphed into a works program for the aerospace industry, as Deke Slayton rightly noted shortly before his death– and today is a vastly over-priced research perch with high levels of maintenence and minimal return to show after a decade plus on the job. If anything, for space exploration purposes as a research outpost- it would have been better if firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms with regular visits and servicing as part of a cislunar HSF program rather than doomed to a Pacific grave.

You have never “schooled” anyone on anything, other than how to be a cowardly pseudonymous Internet troll, and it’s hilariously ironic that a implicitly declared socialist like you calls me “Comrade” anything.

“…and what is clear to wary, private capital circles is the ‘market’ is minimal to nil with little or no ROI.”

Of course you have no proof of that. Boeing continues to have the confidence of it’s stockholders, and SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corp. and Blue Origin are all privately held. If this were anything more than conjecture on your part, you would provide some evidence to back up what you say.

Like usual, your “facts” fade away when confronted with reality.

A lot of that is being driven by the media narrative, not by the candidates themselves (with the possible exception of Santorum, who needs an internal editor). They want to talk about the economy, the media wants to talk about contraception and the “war on women.” ..

LOL yes it was the “elite media” that forced D. Issa to hold his goofball hearing with only male participants, it was the elite media that forced the GOP to bring the Blunt amendment up for a vote…and it was the elite media which cued Limbaugh to go off on his tirade.

The right wing of the GOP always trying to blame someone else. Yawn RGO

“Past is prologue”

Last I looked, William Shakespeare (who used that phrase in the Tempest) wasn’t in the rocket business. And that phrase doesn’t mean you are limited by the past, it means that history influences, and sets the context for, the present.

You use that phrase whenever you are unable to articulate a clear defense of your position, which is certainly the case here.

However if you really dig into the history of spaceflight, and truly understand the trends, you would see that more and more companies are taking over the tasks that were once the exclusive domain of countries.

There is no reason for that trend to abate, as the current situation of the U.S. government relying 100% on commercial rockets proves. Crew is next for routine transportation, and the MPCV, if it survives, will be relegated to exploration only. The trend is clear, and you are wrong. Sorry.

ISS is an example of success achieved by the making, not necessarily the having. We’re learned a tremendous amount about building, maintaining, and keeping people alive in space from ISS. Unless some purpose in keeping such a facility operational can be clearly demonstrated, it’s less a space station than a space accomplishment. That’s not a bad thing, assuming we can use that accomplishment to take new steps. That is, ISS as a completed facility never really had a clear and unambiguous role to play. I guess when you have a completed facility for which the role is somewhat questionable, you associate it with answering questions and, voila, a national laboratory appears.

Unfortunately, Griffith probably just sees ISS as an occupation node for LEO. A “fort” so to speak, that conveys authority over LEO. That’s how human space flight is, in his mind, a tool for national defense. Now, how a national laboratory becomes Fort LEO is a bit hard to grasp.