The word I got is that the work on the manned Dragon has indeed slowed down from its previous pace but that is okay. Apparently they feel they are where they need to be and are now concentrating more on different parts of the business.

As has been pointed out when it comes to returning astronauts to flight on American equipment SpaceX is way ahead of everyone. Including NASA. This is exactly the kind of an embarrassing situation that depending on a big government run space program can put you in. An American company designs and builds a spacecraft and can’t deliver people to the station, maybe for years, because the government can’t provide a f*cking hatch on the station that will fit the spacecraft.

“I know several female fighter pilots who would take exception to your comments on the first female on the lunar surface.”

Sending a bunch of women to the Moon as a stunt is not useful for anyone. That distracts from the work they would be doing, and implies that women need “special” consideration.

If you send the best people, and you have nondiscriminatory standards, then women will naturally be part of that, as will men.

Notice how this ties in with your list of “firsts”, in that pretty much everything you listed were either stunts or not individually worthy of spending $100B of U.S. Taxpayer money.

“NASA and other space agencies lead in exploration, the commercial sector follows.”

Depends on what you call “exploration”.

Does that mean picking up rocks? Is that “exploration”?

Since NASA can’t do everything, and doesn’t have the money to do much very fast, I prefer to have NASA develop the things that enable space exploration, since it doesn’t matter who does it, just that happens.

For instance, to me space exploration includes learning how to live and survive at EM-L1/L2. If we can’t do that, then going on to Mars is unlikely. So NASA developing the technology we’ll need to live at EM-L1/2 is more important to me that returning to somewhere we’ve been before (like the Moon).

If the government really was interested in digging around on the Moon (which it hasn’t been for the last 40 years), the least expensive way to do that is to have NASA contract with the private sector. Put it out for competition, just like the government does here on Earth for so many “exploration” needs.

And again, this all boils down to money, which you seem to ignore. NASA doesn’t get much, so asking them to do everything means they won’t do much at all.

And regarding your obsession with Obama’s “been there, done that” comment, get over it. Except for Bush 43, no other President has bothered to push for going back to the Moon, and even Bush 43 didn’t use any of his “political capital” to support the Constellation effort. The Moon is not a priority for science – Mars is the goal.

I wonder what kennedy might have done had he heard something that profound when he said we were going to the Moon. Hmmm. I am sure he would have been truly impressed.

“I’d rather have the first human back on the Moon since December 1972 wear the stars and stripes on his or her shoulder patch.”

So if a US astronaut lands on the Moon but not with a NASA designed vehicle they won’t be allowed to wear a US shoulder patch? They would be less american? Still truly profound I see.

“I know several female fighter pilots who would take exception to your comments on the first female on the lunar surface.”

Lucky you.

“The commercial sector has a role to play-but not the lead.”

Yeah you’re right. Rockwell might have liked your comments back in the 60s. Grumman too. And a few others for that matter.

“That, Ron, is NASA’s job-and that of the other national space agencies.”

Must be in the 1958 Space Act, right?

“The commercial sector can support exploration, but going somewhere for the first time-or returning to the Moon to get ready for Mars? That is the proper role of NASA. And you fail to take into account the politics.”

So NASA will go to the Moon for the first time in 1969, right? See the problem now? “will go for the first time” in 1969. And then returning to the Moon is NASA’s proper role. So they will go and return to the Moon. No one else? Right.

“This board’s about space politics, ”

Darn! I thought it was about cheese! Got me confused.

“and keep in mind that Congress writes NASA’s checks; the mere suggestion that NASA should “outsource” exploration to the private sector would be DOA on The Hill-and rightly so.”

How blind can you be. Congress is NOT writing any check for exploration. Please give us the WBS number associated with NASA exploration program to go to the Moon or anywhere for that matter. The fact that the SLS/MPCV is accounted for under exploration is idiotic. On the other hand they lump so many things under “exploration”…

“Disagreeing with the administration-regardless of who’s in the White House-is not heresy, blasphemy, or treason.”

Who said that?

“And Ron, you’re forgetting one big thing: national pride.”

Oh yeah, the great big phallic symbol. Forgot that too.

“To many, having the first person make that first step back onto the moon be an American is a lot better than, say, a Russian or Chinese.”

Ah again. An American with a government designed spacecraft, because as everyone with half a brain knows an American with an industry designed vehicle is a lot less American.

“You may not care, but there are those who do. Some are in Congress, and on the relevant committees that deal with NASA.”

Yeah! Go Congress! Go the Committees! Reminds me of something that failed in the 90s. Not sure what it is. Personally I think the government should take care of the youth, the elderly and generally speaking the people of the USA. But it’s just me. On the other hand it makes me think that I can help vote out of office those I don’t want to see in Congress. Funny eh? You know this notion of government by the people for the people…

You can continue to repeat that until you’re blue in the face, but it remains an opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly sensible or substantiated one. When it comes to reducing the cost of space activities, private companies are leading, and they’re likely to lead all the way to other planets, your NASA-centric fetishes notwithstanding.

I know several female fighter pilots who would take exception to your comments on the first female on the lunar surface.

The commercial sector has a role to play-but not the lead. That, Ron, is NASA’s job-and that of the other national space agencies. The commercial sector can support exploration, but going somewhere for the first time-or returning to the Moon to get ready for Mars? That is the proper role of NASA. And you fail to take into account the politics. This board’s about space politics, and keep in mind that Congress writes NASA’s checks; the mere suggestion that NASA should “outsource” exploration to the private sector would be DOA on The Hill-and rightly so.

There is ample room for debate and discussion as to how exploration should proceed. You have your preference, I have mine. Others have their own ideas. Disagreeing with the administration-regardless of who’s in the White House-is not heresy, blasphemy, or treason. And Ron, you’re forgetting one big thing: national pride. To many, having the first person make that first step back onto the moon be an American is a lot better than, say, a Russian or Chinese. You may not care, but there are those who do. Some are in Congress, and on the relevant committees that deal with NASA.

“We don’t need to subsidize private sector wannabea…”

Great, let’s have the ULA launch subsidy removed and let them compete purely on price – which is what SpaceX does. Glad to see you are supporting SpaceX now…

“Apollo only scratched the surface when it comes to human exploration of the lunar surface.”

And scientists were lucky to get that. Remember that the Apollo program was politically motivated, and that the primary goal was “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth“. Exploration was not the goal, just a byproduct.

“Want some firsts that haven’t been done on the lunar surface… First woman on the lunar surface-never been done.”

I know a number of women that would find that a sexist goal, and not worthy of consideration.

“And NO: the commercial sector shouldn’t lead on exploration. That, IMHO, is the job of NASA and the other space agencies.”

If you consider landing in different locations on the same celestial body “A First”, then I think you are setting your “exploration” bar too low.

To me the best use of NASA’s brain power is not in being a tour guide for different places on the Moon and picking up “interesting” rocks, but building and proving out new technologies and techniques that we need to expand humanity further out into space.

And really, who cares what the name is on the outside of the lunar rover? NASA, ESA, JAXA, DSI, Boeing, GM, Praxis or whoever, all that really matters is if it’s sustainable. And that’s where the private sector comes in, in that they dramatically reduce the costs after something has been proven.

For instance, who are the leaders in VTVL these days? NASA? Nope, companies like Masten and Armadillo. So why should NASA spend money on developing VTVL when the private sector is already doing it? The role of government is to do what it’s citizens and companies can’t or won’t do, and right now we have plenty of private sector companies that are willing to step up on exploration – and you think that’s bad?

Which one of any of your ideas brings any benefit back to the US after say for example a woman land on the Moon? Please enlighten us.

Also I wonder. How many places on this Earth have you ever visited that were actually new to you? Any?

As for 2017, at least that keeps you going because once upon a time a certain Bush came up with the VSE which was original and bold but failed to act upon it and the then Congress did not fund any of what was required to achieve Constellation goals. The only hope then was O’Keefe/Steidle spiral approach now known as Flexible Path but this is probably too difficult to comprehend it seems.

Oh well.