https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWtBundJ6_A

The pressing need used to be to flip off the Russians in the era when missles were a threat. There is no such geopolitical need anymore for this particular brand of American missle exceptionalism.

The pressing need used to be exploration. But that was when robotics were done with tubes and discrete transistors. Exploration, as in learning about a new place, is FAR better done remotely these days. How many planets have humans explored, anyway?

The pressing need used to be resource development. But the rapidly increasing sophistication of our robotics and telerobotics calls this into question, as does the uncertainties about available resources.

The pressing need used to be species preservation. That still has some cachet, but I don’t think it has been really thought through completely. What scale of human spaceflight is needed to protect the species? My understanding is that it would take *thousands* of colonists to produce a secure gene pool that is resistant to inbreeding. And that’s for ONE race. It ought to be thought about whether shipping thousands of people to another world is the most cost-effective insurance for our species.

Yeah, there also was “inspiration” and “spinoffs”, but those are somewhat nonsensical, when you think about them.

Human spaceflight is very clearly a “want”, and I guess we just have to think about how defensible federal investment is in wants that aren’t needs. If Elon Musk wants to pay for a want out of his pocket, more power to him!

And of course the supplier is happy with being paid to develop a capability that no one on the open market actually wants or needs. Why wouldn’t they not be happy with complete handouts that they’ve lobbied for?

With Orion development cost pegged at $16.5 billion, the cost of two commercial crew designs is going to be 1/4 the price.

“You assume tribally that people are one camp or the other…”

I used a comparison. If comparisons are no longer allowed in discussion and debates, then I wasn’t aware of it. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I see you use one…

“But they shouldn’t be given government handouts and still get to call it something which its not.”

No disagreements about handouts, which can also be called “Pork”. The SLS and MPCV are good examples of that since they were instigated by the politicians that benefited from it the most, and were not identified as being needed in any way.

In contrast, the Commercial Cargo & Crew programs were instigated to provide a needed service. The ISS, which is an approved and funded program, needs supplies and crew deliveries.

I’ve worked in industries where customers pay upfront for their suppliers to develop products and services for them, so NASA doing the same for their own suppliers is not unusual at all. Maybe you’ve never worked in the same industries I have, and you’re not familiar with how prevalent it is. From a business risk standpoint, and a need standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.

What would you do differently, and how would it cost the U.S. Taxpayer less money for the same outcome?

If companies and individuals want to privatize space by all means they should be allowed to that with the correct regulatory regime. But they shouldn’t be given government handouts and still get to call it something which its not. Private capital markets are what should create new industries in a capitalist economy, not governments subsidizing it through tax payer money. I can think of a few people who would want their money back instead of having it spent on corporate welfare. That goes for SLS too btw

“And by commercial space they mean almost entirely paid for by the government!”

Some investment, sure. Not unlike Apple buying one of it’s suppliers a factory so that they can ramp up to meet Apple’s needs quicker.

At least with commercial space there is a likelihood that a new industry will be created, which will provide jobs and revenue far into the future after government funding has ended. That won’t happen with pure government deficit programs like the SLS and MPCV.

Does that help you understand the difference?

Everything in the partnership is moving towards an extension to 2028:

Oldest ISS Element Cleared Until 2028

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_24_2013_p0-619937.xml

International Space Station Could Fly Through 2028, NASA Partners Say

http://www.space.com/8034-international-space-station-fly-2028-nasa-partners.html

Even if ISS splashed tomorrow, the U.S. human space flight program still needs reliable, frequent access. A single-string that launches once every two years like MPCV/SLS can’t provide that.

“It doesn’t change the crystalline logic of my argument.”

Your crystal ball is cracked, as usual.