NASA is anticipating awards of $300-500M to each performer for two years of work during the next phase of commercial crew. That’s ~$150-250M per year, not $500-800M per year.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1205/02commercialcrew/

Critical observers understand that without much lower cost access to spacem along with some lifestyle changes and some scientific breakthroughs, there won’t be anything much but chaos on this planet many decades from now.

Keep that in mind when or if you criticize Elon Musk or SpaceX.

In the case of the actual “downselect”, it makes sense to keep SpaceX and Boeing as both have low-risk systems that can go into service quickly, and it makes sense to have both in operational service to avoid any further “gaps”. Since both vehicles have dual-use boosters it should not be difficult to maintain a reasonable launch rate.

I continue to be discouraged by the lack of critical thinking regarding Dreamchaser considering that it lacks suffient L/D margin for a safe unpowered landing at any realistic flight mass, and that the lifting body was a solution to a problem that was solved in the 70′s with the development of RCC. The X-37C has vastly better aerodynamics and volumetric efficiency, and the virtue of a prototype having actually flown in orbit and landed unpowered on a runway, while the Russian BOR-4 that served as the prototype of the Dreamchaser required a parachute. Perhaps the very attractive Dreamchaser mockup built be a large team of university students was more important in winning NASA support.

RGO: I agree with the importance of dual use tech. Both the Falcon and Atlas could provide commercial launch services, although I don’t expect Atlas to attract much in the way of non-government customers. The new Chinese LM5 is explicitly designed for commercial heavy lift as well as human launch; China considers human spaceflight to be good advertising for its commercial capabilities.

The overwhelming majority of the population living within that radius is moderate-conservative to right-wing loony. They would vote for Hitler over Obama.

Mark wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

If Romney is smart

and finally

MrEarl wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
for someone with more substance and business acumen. >>

Willard is not really smart nor has any great acumen…what it is turning out to be is that Willard is vicious…and being very rich he can take a lot of chances that a lot of the rest of us cannot, after all he will never get a pink slip…

How vicious Willard is, can be seen by the fact that over the last 8 years or so he has jettisoned, then rejettisoned various “beliefs” he has professed to have and have deeply. Whittington is correct…if Willards advisors told him he needed to come out for a lunar base…Willard would have some massive conversion and change policy and deny he ever was on the other side of the fence.

With the singular exception of beating up on Newt, Willard has never really moved the electorate “to his positions”; it has always been him moving toward theirs.

Obama is a weak dick…Mark H on Morning Joe got it correct…in retrospect Obama’s 08 election was simply to easy. McCain was inept, Palin sunk him even farther…and people just wanted something other then Bush43… If Obama wants to win since he has no real success stories that are politically palatable he is going to have to go for Willards juggler…and that is Willards ability to tell the truth; followed by his movement toward the GOP right wing.

My guess is that Obama can summon up his courage and do it; but we will see. Anyway WIllard is not smart…Smith is correct…the GOP nuts would vote for Hitler over Obama…most of them still believe that Saddam had WMD. Reality is not a pre existing condition. RGO

Grassley believes NASA should be limited to funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to a few big GOP contributors for a giant government-micromanaged program with no useful products.

I’m sure you enjoy repeating this sort of thing at every second post but I’ve a question: When are you going to acknowledge NASA’s lousy sheduling and delays or even the ‘old’ players in the same manner as you do SpaceX? Happy to help?

” he’ll roll out a plan to restore the civil space program sometime during the general election.”

and “restoring the civil space program” looks like what in your view? Newts Lunar goal? HAH RGO

“I only used 64 as a time marker actually…to me modern politics start about then.” RGO
You replied:”Actually, “modern politics” really gets it start with the election of 1912 pitting TR, Taft and Wilson in a three way race. This is when politicians first started to actively campaign for the presidency. ”

You are free to have your own viewpoint but I dont agree. TV is the great “game change” in modern politics…and that really didnt get fired up until the 64 election…the LBJ ad that ran exactly once (the one with the little girl and the countdown and the gadget going off) after AuH2O called gadgets “just another weapon” sort of is the liftoff of modern campaigns…but you are free to have your own viewpoint.

I found this more entertaining and thoughtful

“Second, I’ve often heard historians say that if the roles of the 1932 election were reversed with FDR as president, it’s believed the electorate would have been looking for someone with more substance and business acumen. Someone just like, wait for it……. Herbert Hoover.”

mostly agreed. Most American elections are muddled messages…except when there are two sides competing with very unique visions of America…that then gives the election clarity. 64 turned into that…but 32 was also.

32 in particular because GOP economics not only were considered to have failed, but Hoover was MOSTLY considered inept at trying to deal with the issues that were simply overwhelming The Republic. HST said it correctly when he noted that Hoover had as much to do with causing the depression as “he” (HST) did…the main thing that sunk Hoover was that his notions of how to “fix” it were rejected.

It is worth noting that FDR in 36 had about the same unemployment rate as he did in 32…but the “perception” was that FDR was getting a hand on it…and of course Landon was a poor campaigner (but Frank Knox was not and FDR noticed!)

I thought some (but had not read your post) about your earlier comments…and in my view this election stands a pretty good chance of being a landslide one way or the other…the trick is going to be which perception takes hold…Obama has a good plan but is frustrated by the GOP House…or the GOP Houses budget is the way to go.

I certainly hope Obama wins, but at this time have no clue which way the dynamics are going to go.

“First, SLS/MPCV will play absolutely no role in the election, even in Florida and Texas.”

Hmm no role. I dont think you are correct on that. I have never said it would be “determinative”…my word would be that Obama has a good chance to make it illustrative of differences between him and Willard.

We will see. I have my candidates of course but to me politics is a blood sport…almost like the Roman Coliseum.

BTW I dont think Willard is that smart. RGO

Curiouser and curiouser.

The President’s budget strongly supports MPCV, and SLS, though he would have rather achieved the capabilities of the latter in other ways. No undermining there. He’s heaving dollars at those projects by the shovelful. “Making this a NASA versus private industry issue”? Huh? COTS and CCDev are part of the NASA plan. A formal part. NASA is working closely with private industry, as per the President’s instructions. Maybe some people are making it a NASA versus private industry issue, but it sure isn’t the President doing that.

As to specific plans for beyond LEO, the President has certainly not exercised a lot of leadership, but with a Congress that wants to totally control NASA and design launch vehicles for them, why should he bother to try? Of course, Congress has now admitted to NASA that they don’t have a clue either about where we should be going, or why we’re even doing human space flight, so I guess they can duck that leadership responsibility as well.