In fact, NASA lags academia by about 5-8 years. Carbon nanotubes are sooo 2003.

“While the insurrection from within NASA that produced the impressive work that became known as “DIRECT” was able to show that Constellation was too expensive and unnecessary it was unable to make a case for itself.”

Good summary, and that pretty much sums up what I experienced as a DIRECT enthusiast when I started coming to Space Politics many years ago. Through the efforts of and many posters, who educated me on the various cost structures of the Shuttle and other programs, I eventually came to understand what you wrote in your post.

I think the DIRECT team did a good job, but it wasn’t needed and it still would have been too expensive of a system to operate.

While the insurrection from within NASA that produced the impressive work that became known as “DIRECT” was able to show that Constellation was too expensive and unnecessary it was unable to make a case for itself. DIRECT was obviously better than Constellation but IMO was not enough of an improvement to replace the program of record. Why? The old tech, the legacy costs of operations, and many other things.

I am grateful for the work the DIRECT team did. But what they mainly accomplished was bringing to light the absurdities of the program they hoped to replace but ultimately could not.

“We could buy the only rides to the ISS for the next five years or so other than Soyuz. But I am not suggesting we buy anything from China unless we need it. I am suggesting we offer China full membership in the ISS program.”

I’m OK with inviting China to join our efforts in space, including the ISS. Peace through partnership, and all that.

However let’s remember that China’s space program is government run, and is not commercial in any way. I mention that because they cannot contribute to a robust, competitive market, since they are not able to abide by competitive pricing – if they wanted to dominate a market, they can run deficits for as long as they want.

But if they want to contribute to the ISS, by all means.

Unfortunately, NASA does not want to ask. NASA wants to be asked.

Someone once posted about the worst divas working at NASA…

FWIW.

“Finally, the Long March 5, the new Chinese heavy lift system, is a new design with little or nothing in common with Russian or US LVs, and the new launch site on Hainan is similarly a Chinese design.”

Sure, there are some things that the Chinese are doing that is not derived from Soviet/Russian designs, but so far you haven’t pointed out anything that would cause us to say “gee, I wish we could buy that from China”. Even the Long March 5 will be surpassed by the Falcon Heavy (likely before the Long March 5 flies), and likely for a better price too.

“In comparison, both the Lockheed Atlas and OSC Antares use engines of Russian manufacture.”

I think competition is good, and I don’t mind buying tried & true designs or reconditioned parts from approved vendors. Besides, if Pratt & Whitney wanted the business, they could have made an effort – but they didn’t. That to me is not an indication that the Russians have better hardware, but that some of our larger aerospace companies have become too dependent on fat government business. With the new threat of competition from SpaceX, we’ll see if that brings change.