But it’s not intended as such a geopolitical strategy; instead, it is primarily a jobs program for the traditional space states.

The difference between you and me is that if SLS was indeed practical, I would be all for it. It’s what is possible that matters to me, not what I wish would be. You talk in hindsight about what a piece of crap Ares-1 was, but you are not honest enough to admit the same kind of flaws doom SLS. Grow up.

You’re projecting your oen insecurities regrding CC HSF ops, Rick. the real comedy is your effort to seek parody w/experienced governmsnt HSF ops having failed to launch, orbit and sfely return anybody from LEO, let alone Luna. That’s pretty funnyu, indeed.

“I always think it’s funny when “place” is defined as a hard surface.”

Apparently DCSCA doesn’t like our Navy or Air Force either, since they keep returning to the same place – just circling out of their bases and coming back, over and over…

I always think it’s funny when “place” is defined as a hard surface. By that token, none of our federal agencies and federal investment serving national need are going to any “place”. Yep, NIH is going no place. They just pump money into labs and hospitals. The fluid in their flasks just go round and round. The doctors just circulate doing their duties. They never get anywhere! Why our national pastime involves going round and round. You hit the ball, and run, and come back to where you started! They aren’t even going “fast”. But we do good stuff while we’re going in circles. As we do in LEO.

NASA is about rockets. It’s about propulsion. It’s about going fast. It’s about lifting big things. It’s about learning about space. That may involve sending humans “places”. But it may not. Yep, just go look at the Space Act, which defines the agency.

Going in circles, nowhere, fast. That’s what comes across when I continually hear those words, which are said over and over and over.

NASA has a lot of talented employees, civil servants and contractors. What is missing is imagination and a more flexible Congress. Also it is the impression that when someone is hired by NASA they will do the job they were hired for sure but for the rest of their lives. And that is totally absolutely ludicrous. So in essence if you know how to deposit the grained propellant in a canister for an SRB then you will do that forever? How idiotic. Private sector which is most everybody else has to adapt to the market environment. Why would NASA not adapt to their own market environment? Let’s put it this way. If the public were ready to invest $16B a year to shovel dirt and you get paid $100K to do it would you do it? If not what would you do? Change job? Here. That is your answer.

NASA must adapt now or it will go away. And especially NASA HSF. And FWIW NASA “traditional” HSF (i.e. MPCV, SLS) is resisting as much they can. Well good for them. Maybe the next WH/Congress will give NASA a mission and a budget? Right? Maybe? Well maybe not.

“but not to the extent that a 100% shut down of all of Constellation’s components and its successor”

The people working on Constellation didn’t have degrees that said “Ares I Only”, they have degrees that allow them to work in many varied areas and industries.

That said, if Congress was concerned about too many highly degreed people losing their jobs at one time, they had many other remedies they could have used instead of creating a fake program.

“…which might even include shutting down some NASA centers.”

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Everyone, including NASA knows they have too many centers. I think Bolden even mentioned that he wished they didn’t have to support so many.

“When commercial space comes into full steam…”

What exactly is “commercial” to you? Because to me “commercial” has been running at full steam in the space segment since the 60’s. There is no question that companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin are better at designing and operating hardware than NASA is, the only question is who does what, when, and who pays for it.

It’s an economics question, not a capabilities one, and so far we are doing it the most expensive way possible (i.e. NASA building an operating their own transportation).

“Since my opinion is that commercial space will continue to build momentum regardless of whether or not SLS continues, that’s the reason I’m not so gung ho about canceling SLS.”

That makes no sense what’s so ever. As long as the SLS lives, there is no money for NASA to do anything in space. If that’s your goal, then cheering on the SLS makes sense.

For me, I want NASA to be able to do space exploration, even if it’s on a small budget. But the only way to do that is by leveraging commercial launch services, not wasting $30B on the largest rocket never put into operation.