Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

why don't you tell us why *you*
think postponing any large-scale space development, exploration, or
settlement is a good idea?

I think the large scale developent, exploration, and settlement has a
better chance of success, over the long term, if is preceded by
publicly funded exploration.

Yes, I *know* you think that. I asked *why* you think it.

And why does "publicly funded exploration" have to be limited to a
miniscule handful of government employees? We have public highways,
parks, etc. all over the US, yet private citizens are allowed to
explore them. Why should space be different?

And as noted who knows how many times
now, both involve setting up bases on the Moon and Mars, which can
also serve as the initial foothold.

Yes, but the fact that you call any facility built on the Moon or Mars
a "base" does not mean they would all be similar. A NASA base on the
Moon would have no more in common with a lunar settlement than Goddard
Space Flight Center has with Greenbelt, Maryland.

You still haven't explained why having only three or four of them is
better than than having hundreds.

I don't, but no one is in a position to get hundreds up there at this
time.

No one is in a position to get five or six to the Moon at this exact
time, either. If the US government can spend hundreds of billions
developing the capability to send a very small number of people to the
Moon -- as you're proposing -- why can't it take the the same money
and spend it in a way that would allow a large number of people to go
to the Moon?

And if I am correct about the large scale colonization
benefitting from publicly funded trail blazers, then getting it
bass-ackwards insures no one goes anwhere.

Nonsense. There have been publicly-funded trailblazers already. I have
no idea why you keep denying that.

..... You're
advocating an architecture based on superexpensive Shuttle-Derived
Vehicles....

Yes, when this thread began, I agreed with the Shuttle-derived option,
because it could be built relatively quickly and using exisiting
facilities. And I agreed the high costs counted against it. It has
advatanges and disadvantages.

Using existing facilities is not an advantage when existing facilities
cost more than the alternative -- and the proposed schedule belies the
claim that it would be "relatively quick."

..... that would delay the development of CATS .....

How is CATS delayed if it is pursued at the same time as other
options?

Because the systems you propose would squander resources that could be
used to develop cheaper vehicles, as well as helping to kill the
market for them.

Even as NASA brainstorms its Moon/Mars options, Falcon 1
sits on a pad, and the X-Prize contestants are getting very close to
trying for it; IIRC, at least one has an FAA liscense for its attempt.
Who's delaying whom?

The existance of Shuttle, even while grounded, is delaying NASA from
taking advantage of vehicles like Falcon 1. A new Shuttle-derived
vehicle would further delay it.