In article ,
says...


I'm in favor of SLS/Orion and that doesn't need to be repeated further.

You're a closet socialist, aren't you? I'll bet you're in favor of
having the government take over the health care industry too.

In
case you haven't noticed, NASA is beholden to Congress, and if Congress says
"Thou Shalt build a heavy-lift vehicle" and appropriates the necesary funds,
NASA has to do it. They can't pick and choose what parts of the law (such as
the 2010 Space Authorization Act) to follow.

Stratolaunch will work with small payloads (it's been done with Pegasus
before), but larger ones...you need a conventional rocket for those.

Musk has admitted that he's only got 1% of the lobbying power that the big
boys (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, ULA, Northrup-Grumman, etc. have). Trying to
convince Congresscritters that Commercial Cargo and Crew is a good way
forward has been a tough sell.

That doesn't negate my position that NASA building and flying its own
launch vehicles and manned spacecraft is a purely socialistic endeavor.
At this point in time commercially developed launch vehicles are
becoming more plentiful. Manned commercial spacecraft are also being
designed and built.

Government competition means that it's harder to convince investors to
put their money into commercial endeavor. Without investors like Musk,
Allen, Branson, and Bigelow, the prospects for commercial launch and
commercial manned spacecraft would be very bleak indeed. How many
start-ups have come and gone over the years due to lack of funds?

I agree that SLS/Orion are politically unstoppable, but that doesn't
mean they're a good thing for the US aerospace industry.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker