“False equivalency. Ron, all the vehicles in those programs were experimental…”

While you could argue that Apollo 13 was still experimental, since the design was roughly the same as previous ones, it was hardly an experimental design that caused the problem.

For Challenger and Columbia, the Shuttle program had been declared operational after four flights, so no, they were not considered experimental.

“…and ceratinly not brought to market for contracting services for profit.”

Too bad you don’t know the history of the Shuttle. The Shuttle program was built specifically to haul commercial and other government payloads – for financial compensation. So yes, it was for contracting purposes. =eyeroll=

“Except they are– especially when espoused by a faction that has flown nobody.”

So I’m sure you would have been protesting outside the gates of NASA before the Mercury and Gemini flights demanding that NASA stop their “science fiction” fantasies?

The problem you have DCSCA is that you can’t see when things ARE possible versus when things are not YET possible.

Everyone knows the Falcon 9 can fly to space, because it has done so five times. So a Falcon Heavy, which is just a Falcon 9 with two Falcon 9 1st stages strapped on (just like Delta IV Heavy) is not a stretch of the imagination, it’s just a stretch of engineering (i.e. not fiction at all).

Everyone knows the Dragon spacecraft has flown to the ISS three times, and returned safely. They know the G-forces, they know the environmental capabilities, and they know that other capsules have flown to space and back. So flying a human to space on a Dragon is not science fiction, it’s just a matter of engineering and business conditions – is it profitable to spend resources to fly a human to space today, when NASA doesn’t need the service?.

Using both a Falcon Heavy and a Dragon to fly past Mars then is not science fiction, since professionals in various disciplines have said the technology of today is good enough to keep two people alive for the 501-day mission. And not flying humans to space is not because it CAN’T be done, but because SpaceX has chosen not to.

But I’m afraid for you, because you are setting up such a high bar in your mind, that when SpaceX and others finally do fly humans to space, you won’t be able to accept the new reality. I suggest you seek medical help soon…

False equivalency. Ron, all the vehicles in those programs were experimental, and ceratinly not brought to market for contracting services for profit. =eyeroll=

Except they are- particularly when presented from a faction that has failed to launch, orbit, and safely return anybody from LEO.

“Mission models are not “science fiction”

Except they are– especially when espoused by a faction that has flown nobody.

“Industry contracts are not “science fiction”–

The contracts may be real but what they’re contracted for remains total fiction- and can easily be terminated before a single piee of hardware is constructed.

“You repetitively argue that various human space exploration plans are science fiction.”

Because it is science fiction. Stephen Colbert lampooned one of the si-fi plans earlier this week- Tito’s Mars fantasy. And Colbert is a space enthusiast in the MSM.

You hsve flown nobody. That is science fact -an arena familiar to Clarke BTW along with his extrapolations- based on facts and real world experience.

Stop projecting your own failings. You pitch paper space plans wrapped in press releases culled from google serarches simply to generate an aura of false equivalency for the commercial HSF clan that has failed to launch, orbit and retuern anybody from LEO to day. You want street cred- fly somebody.

“Only a faction within the agency does”

I’ve looked through the NASA budget, have you? The only budget line account/department that would not like what SpaceX offers NASA is the SLS folks. SpaceX saves NASA significant money for launches, which means more money can be put towards science hardware – tell me NASA scientists don’t love that!

Even the MPCV folks could probably care less (they are Lockheed Martin, whereas the SLS is Boeing), since the Falcon Heavy can easily lift that overweight Apollo wannabe.

“NASA would rather be flying shuttle– and pressing on w/Constellation ”

If money grew on trees, sure. But those that know that money doesn’t grow on trees knew there were hard choices to make. Apparently you think money grows on trees.

“Which makes you a perfect viewer for Fox.”

I only watch the Fox network for oppo research. For political stuff I prefer John Stewart and Rachel Maddow.

Isn’t it amazing how wrong you can be?

Hmm. Which NASA ‘faction’ would that be? The one that has prayed for a massive Apollo-esq, money-no-object, decade long program since Apollo? (If you think the Shuttle was that, where’s the two-stage flyback booster, no ET version they really wanted?)

“It keeps them trapped in LEO.If Space X went belly up, it wouldn’t be missed by NASA.”

NASA? Nonsense. But, the Russians would likely be okay with that. They’ve learned capitalism, and don’t like competition. (or to lose the ‘geopolitical’ leverage that comes with being the sole-source of human access to the station…for any of its partners)

China (who already can’t underbid SpaceX on commercial launches) would also like to see us not break out of the current box with HSF that wasn’t guaranteed to always depend on the whims of the US Government as well.

… there is no chance Congress is going to stop funding the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract.

More to the point, doing so would not kill this particular dragon. SpaceX has plenty of non-government income, and its owner wants Dragon for his own purposes. So zeroing CRS and Commercial Crew would only slow it down some.