IMO the issue with the current programs is that too much science is trying to be crammed into single spacecraft rather than having more with each doing fewer tasks mainly due to the inordinate cost of space launch. I believe the U.S. launch and space science businesses have reached a ‘tipping’ point. Both science missions and others are going to be restricted in number, size and scope due to the inordinate cost of them and launch. This is affecting DOD as well with the same likely outcomes.
SpaceX is the only company attempting to alleviate this situation. Scientists involved in these missions and other commercial satellite companies should get behind SpaceX if they wish to continue in their business in any meaningful way.

Had HSF not been around to support HST, the science community would have dunked HST-I, and built HST-II …

You mean they would have lobbied Congress to fund HST-II, and Congress would have responded “After the way you screwed up HST-I, you want us to give you another billion dollars!?!?!?!?” And all the other interest groups in DC would have advocated spending money on their pet desires instead. And since it would be an entirely new appropriation, instead of continuation of an existing line item, the odds are vanishingly small that it would have been approved in less than a decade. And then, of course, it would have turned into JWST, because “we can do things so much better now” and “this time failure really is not an option”.

There. That’s what I intended it to look like.

“No american company that has all it’s investments tied up here are going to fight the government and start building rockets in the third world dictators country…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_agencies

Odd you feel only ‘American’ firms can develop/conduct commercial operations. The resources are not limited to the U.S., the technology originally florished in Germany, Russia and ‘space programs’ operate all over the world.

@Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 24th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
“So the successful use of robotics (Surveyor/Ranger/Lunar Orbiter) in support of HSF operations is voided by the passage of time w/you. LOL HST was designed for servicing by HSF- and in fact, was saved by same due to failures in quality control by the manufacturers & oversight in the space science ciommunity.”

Sure, nothing is “voided by time”, except there is a history of several decades of successful and strongly congressionally supported science missions since then you seem to be ignoring that had absolutely nothing to do with human space flight. It’s not as if association with human space flight is needed to ensure congressional support for science missions.

HST was indeed designed for servicing by HSF, and that work was done extremely well. Now, the direction of support isn’t entirely clear. Had HSF not been around to support HST, the science community would have dunked HST-I, and built HST-II, at lower cost to NASA than a servicing mission. But had HST not been around to have HSF support it, HSF would have lost out on a profoundly important accomplishment that to this day is marked by HSF advocates as a profound gold star. That is, repair of HST was among the proudest moments of the HSF community.

You are so full of it that your eyes are brown. With 2000 billionaires and 20000 millionaires you are saying that the only thing stopping one of them from spending 25 million to build SS1 and WK1 was fear of investment?

Man are you daffy, if you do not think the military signed off on the X prize and allowed it to happen then you are nuttier then I thought.

The military wants space planes, the Dennis Kosiniches in congress will never let it happen.

FIrst the public has to be comfortable with seeing space planes like the SS2, once the public has a transportation system it is easy for the military to say they want them too.

No american company that has all it’s investments tied up here are going to fight the government and start building rockets in the third world dictators country… again you are sounding nuts .. again.

The USA is going to allow private businesses puting space tech that can drop incontintential bombs in the hands of third world dictators .. no DC… an american can not just go country hopping and build ballistic missiles in their country.

“ Not w/government subsidies– that’s not a good thing, especially as those funds syphoned away from a dwinding resource pool to subsidize commercial exploitation frustrates funding government exploration projects of acale. The place for commercial firms to source seed monies for financing exploitation is the private capital markets, not the U.S. Treasury.”

Not really. Rockets have been privatized since the 1980ies. NASA could have chosen ULA or Orbital to do cargo launch in the first round COTS and Boeing or Lockheed Martin to develop the spacecraft. I personally think that they were on some level trying to show that private companies couldn’t do the sacred duty of support HSF more directly when Space X made a lot more progress than expected and although RPK went bankrupt, I think the Bush administration wouldn’t lets them weasel out and so they choose Orbital. In theory launching a cargo vessel is no different than launching any other statelight expect for the added rendezvous and docking(or birthing).

Also part of the requirement for COTS is that there was a certain amount of private funding. This is very different than for things like Orion and the Shuttle where the government is footing 100% of the development bill. In other words Elon and some private investors have skin in the game from the get go. Anyway they way COTS works is you don’t get paid till you demonstrate the objectives that you agree upon. So NASA has not yet paid for the COTS2/3 flight because it has not launched.

Anyway Orbital has been around since 1982, made its first launch in the 90ies and makes both rockets and satelights. So your rant about securing a contract before you can provide doesn’t apply much to them as by 2006(the year COTS was awarded), Orbital had developed the Pegasus rocket, Taurus rocket, and Minotaur rocket.

Anyway without cheap and effective resupply there is no such thing as exploration period. Privatization helps here.

“Shuttle alone became its own destination for government space operations … when the government space agency was injected w/efforts at ‘privatization’ by Reagan era ideologues…”

It’s pretty apparent that when you’re talking about anything not of the 60’s, you get easily confused.

NASA didn’t stop using the Shuttle for commercial flights because of Reagan. The fate of the Shuttle was sealed the day it was approved by Nixon in 1972, and if anything the Challenger disaster was the just one of the confirmations of that fate.

For a little history of who was going to initially use the Shuttle, this Wired article talks about the plans for the first 23 flights.

In hindsight, Reagan actually saved NASA from continuing down the wrong road when he ordered NASA to get out of the commercial launch business, and he predicted that would stimulate development of a private satellite launching industry. Which it did.

What would you have wanted Reagan to do – force NASA to keep trying to be a commercial launch entity? Weird.

“…and it’s clear NASA went off course decades ago, when an integrated space program w/shuttle, station and lunar exploration plans with an ultimate goal of Mars were shelved.”

And yet you are against the ISS, despite it being foretold by your 60’s space visionaries? Again, weird.

“NdGT is correct- double NASA’s budget”

You mean double the amount of money we borrow from China for politicians to use on their pet projects? You know, the old “43 cents of every dollar” crap you always retort when anyone but you suggests spending more? Not just weird, but bizarre.

I don’t think you know what you stand for. To put it in your own words – you’re just crankin to crank.

??? The point between Beano & DCSCA was about having the contract before initiating the project. Apparently you missed that. Of course they tried to secure a gov’t contract afterwards — that is, after they proved it was possible– not before. So what you’re advocating is securing a contract before you can prove you can provide the goods & services for same. Hilarious.

Not w/government subsidies– that’s not a good thing, especially as those funds syphoned away from a dwinding resource pool to subsidize commercial exploitation frustrates funding government exploration projects of acale. The place for commercial firms to source seed monies for financing exploitation is the private capital markets, not the U.S. Treasury.

Commercial has always been a follow along, exploiting, cashing in where it could.

Do you not understand that this is a good thing ?