“Space X is not NASA.”

Good thing too, since otherwise American wouldn’t be taking back international launch business that fled after Lockheed Martin and Boeing decided to concentrate on maximizing their profits through their ULA monopoly.

“You’ve got to start seeing space ops through geo-polirical glasses.”

What is “geo-polirical”

I suggest you use a spell-checker if you want people understanding what you write.

But if you mean “geo-political”, then no, that is the old model for space exploration – the Apollo one. I know you are fixated on Apollo, but you can see how far it has led us out into space since the last Apollo mission 40 years ago.

“The stipends for robotic exploration’ aside, space ops is chiefly geo-political.”

Regardless what you call it, Bigelow, SpaceX and Boeing will call it revenue when Bigelow’s Space Complex Alpha starts receiving it’s first international customers.

You just made my point, Ron. Space X is not NASA. You’ve got to start seeing space ops through geo-polirical glasses. The stipends for robotic exploration’ aside, space ops is chiefly geo-political. Apollo was geopolitical.

“One thing is certain- as the history of modern rocket development has demonstratd, private enterprise has NEVER led the way in the field.”

Well considering that space initially was just an extension of our military confrontations with the Soviet Union, why should private enterprise lead? Even Apollo was an extension of our efforts in the Cold War.

But who built the space hardware? Commercial companies. And as the government/military stranglehold on space loosened, commercial companies figured out how to make a business out of space. Now they far outstrip what governments are spending on space, and it’s only accelerating.

What is NASA’s budget? Around $18B/year, right? In 2011 the satellite manufacturing industry had revenues of almost $12B, and the satellite service providers had revenue around $108B. The U.S. satellite launch market was about $2B, but because of SpaceX it will be growing at a fast pace. Factor in that commercial companies get far more hardware for the same amount of money that NASA spends, and the trend should be pretty clear, even to someone like you…

If it’s not already apparent to you, there is a lot of money being committed to a number of commercial space endeavors, from transportation to mining. If history is any guide, not all will make it – but some will, and that will pave the way for even more. THAT is how frontiers are opened, not waiting for Congress to release funding for each multi-$Billion launch of the SLS.

“It has been governments, in various guises and for a variety of geo-political motives- which has led the way in this field.”

In the 50 or so years since we reached space, governments have done a pretty poor job expanding our presence out into space. Just six people in a science outpost. You call that leading? Bigelow could equal or exceed that amount of people in just 5 years!

Stand aside government-boi, and let the business people take it from here.

“ Thirty years ago that was the battle cry around shuttle all throgh the press and periodicals even in the wake of the Challenger loss. ”

It’s amazing how clueless you are – the Shuttle was a government-run program, not a commercial response to an emerging market. It was an effort to do what governments sometimes try to do, which is to build transportation infrastructure. But since it wasn’t in response to a well understood market need, and they didn’t truly understand how to build a reusable transportation system, it failed pretty early on, but political inertia kept it going, not true need.

But notice how you have yet to explain how we can expand our presence out into space solely through NASA’s paltry budget. Hmm? That’s because we can’t. NASA can be an engine of innovation and leading edge exploration, but it does not have the money or the recognized task of being an “occupier”. Run science posts like the ISS, yes, but our future is not to ride on NASA space transports, and sleep in NASA space hotels.

Human expansion out into space, absent some sort of “National Imperative”, can only be financed by commerce. Which is the way it’s always been done.

This is just silly, Ron. Thirty years ago that was the battle cry around shuttle all throgh the press and periodicals even in the wake of the Challenger loss. We are living in their ‘thirty years from now’ time frame. And they were wrong. Just as you are.

Well, Germany was proactive w/von Braun; the Rssians were quite proactive w/Sputnik and Gagarin– even Britain was proactive when it created a prison colony — Australia— back in the day. Governments are very proactive when their inteests are in play. That’s why SLS is a ‘go.’

nobody says it should be repeated on that scale. On you. and, of course Garvr during pressers at the STS-135 launch. One thing is certain- as the history of modern rocket development has demonstratd, private enterprise has NEVER led the way in the field. It has been governments, in various guises and for a variety of geo-political motives- which has led the way in this field. Reaganomics is not going to fuel the way out into the cosmos. Sober up, Ron.