'Pool resources?'

Rather than try to find the 'one right way' to build a spaceship, let there be as many different approaches as possible, and let natural selection from testing and operation show which are the most successful ones.

Trying to 'bring everybody together' begs for bureaucracy, and bureaucracy tends to kill innovation and alternative approaches, to preserve the 'program of record.'.

"Stuarts'' hehe, that's a good one

Makes one wonder when we'll see these private space corporations skimp on necessary safety equipment and/or protocol in order to increase their profits by saving money on said equipment with tragic consequences. Also, they have benefitted from all the development and research that NASA did back in the 1950's, through present day. It would have cost them alot more if they hadn't been able to look at NASA's designs.

M9;

The Dragon is infinitely safer than any other capsules, or the shuttle. The whole thing can separate, fly some distance, then open chutes -- at any point in the launch or flight. Existing 'escape towers' would only work during a brief 2 minute window, and are a huge extra mass that gets dumped when that window is past.

Elon freely acknowledges building on NASA designs -- but the best ones never got used. Only the second-rate kluges Congress wanted (more jobs to spread around). That's why SpaceX builds everything itself.

Even if your alarmist rant were true, what could companies possibly do to the moon and other planets that I would care about? Pollute it? Even in the very worst case scenario, I can't be bothered to panic about astral bodies with no breathable atmospheres or life forms having their "ecosystems" "ruined" or their resources depleted. Give me one good reason why we SHOULDN'T suck every possible resource out of the countless lifeless rocks floating through space.

"Makes one wonder when we'll see these private space corporations skimp on necessary safety equipment and/or protocol in order to increase their profits by saving money on said equipment with tragic consequences."

It doesn't save money if your entire multi-million dollar spaceship and all those hard-to-train-and-equip astronauts go up in smoke, does it? Never mind the inevitable lawsuits, investor flight, and loss of confidence in the company in question. Your assumption that a commercial enterprise is going to take foolish safety risks implies a total lack of business sense and risk analysis from people who would presumably have these traits to be in business in the first place.

THANK YOU gbull...

About the ONLY intelligent post on this blog.

As SF said, a failed satellite launch, dead Astronauts and/or disintegrated cargo do not make for a successful business model, and everything SpaceX has done so far indicates they are putting safety at the forefront. Why else do you think they (NASA and SpaceX) had Dragon do the hokey-pokey in orbit before berthing with ISS?

And to clarify, SpaceX has received between $400-500 million from NASA as part of the COTS program, and is in the running for more funding. That is about one-half of its funding the last ten years. The remaining funds came from Elon Musk himself as well as other investors. The non-NASA money figures to increase pretty quickly as SpaceX has contracts for non-NASA missions already lined up.

But don't let the facts get in the way of good political spin.

Yea right ....

Our government will pay $250.00 for a toilet seat ....

"Their motive is and should be purely "Profit!" Without proper oversight, they will do to the universe as they have done to our planet!"

And state-run entities (that is your only alternative, you know) never do harm, never run inefficiently?

Businesses screw up enough, they go out of business. There's usually some competitor to turn to. Governments screw up, they can just take more from your pockets t cover it. And there's no 'other' government to turn to...

lsdkfs;'ofiu osifusofi ;;lsip laskeuw

Businesses screw up enough, they go out of business. There's usually some competitor to turn to. Governments screw up, they can just take more from your pockets t cover it. And there's no 'other' government to turn to...

There are always other governments to turn to, they just are not any better.

For a small fee you can get next-month shipping to Mars colony!

Maybe because this is the *first* American vehicle to be launched since the Shuttle was retired from service? This is new given we all know it costs a lot to pay the Russians to send cargo and ferry astronauts to and from the ISS. With Dragon, we can save money and do it all here in America at a lower price than the Russians are giving.

So this maybe not new to you Bianca, but this is new to many others who know this is a new step to bringing America back into the game.

The difference is that this is the first non-government designed spacecraft to visit ISS. The US Space Shuttle, Russian Soyuz and Progress, and the ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle are all government built and designed spacecraft (yes most were contracted to private companies for actual construction, but the respective space agencies footed 100% of the bill).

While NASA has partially funded SpaceX, the craft was designed and built completely by SpaceX (not a NASA contractor), including all the programming and command and control procedures being handled by SpaceX employees working with and at NASA, not by NASA personnel. Some articles will reference NASA asking/telling SpaceX to adjust this or that (the laser range finder was one example), and it is SpaceX personnel making the changes. And part of SpaceX's business model includes non-ISS bound launches as well (launching satellites, etc).

I do realize that this is a "first" in a sense that it is a collaboration between NASA and private sector. And it is definitely important to get back into the space flight technology, after years of Shuttle program. I was wondering, though, if it is technologically any different/better then decades old Russian unmanned vehicles. Yes, DEFINITELY, it is good to get back into space program --- that is for sure. And it is infinitely better to do it in US, then to pay someone else for services. It may not be even cheaper then the high price we are paying for Russian shuttle --- but that is not the point. Having the technology at home will allow us to grow and innovate.

But I am not as enamoured with everything "private" being better and more efficient. Because it is definitely not always the case. First, we need to ask ourselves whether what is being privatized is of strategic interest --- as in that case ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC --- is required. No activity that is of vital national interest can be taken out of the sfere of accountability to public. Once that happens, we the people have no longer any say in it. We have already crossed that red line in other area of public interest, and we are paying high price for doing it.

If public money and other resources are being spent, then we are exposing ourselves to the distortions of free market --- and creating subsidy to private sector profit at the expense of taxpayer. Much of this will be at play here. This is a model much used in monarchies, where public purse is the same as King's purse. It was common to have King give money, estates, and commercial priviledges to private interests. Now, we have Congress essentially give money and other assets, including brainpower of NASA engineers, to private interest to make profit. I am all for public/private partnership. But it will have to be a true parthership, with each partner not only investing money, but also sharing the profit. I do not support "private" sector that is not market based, but is dependent on taxpayers' subsidy. Sooner or later, more and more money is "needed", and our politicians will always find in these corporations willing campaign contributors, and just "have to" give them more contracts. We already have much too much incestuous relationship between public and private purse already in military. Good fences make good neighbors. Our public money, lands, patents, brainpower, etc, is our CAPITAL, and needs to be treated equally with PRIVATE capital. If not, we the public just spend, while individuals profit --- and our coffers are eventually empty. Former astronauts had many objections to this program --- and I would like to think that they know the business well enough not to risk their reputations --- unless it is for a very good reason. We need to be quite cautious before falling for the cheerfull slogans of everything private being automatically better in the long run.

That is a good argument, Bianca, but I dare say it stems from a mistaken premise. When you call space a "strategic interest", I immediately think "so, wait, WHY are we pouring money into space programs"? There's a lot of fluffy reasons and of course the ubiquitous "SCIENCE!" answer, but ultimately the purpose of an exploratory research program funded by the government should be to disseminate information and technology to the public.

Your argument treats the space program as an end to itself, when it's not. What's the point of my tax money exploring space if the civilian sector never gets to use any of it? If NASA designs or discovers something that can be used by our corporations, then what compelling reason is there for it to hold that technology for itself so that civilians can't use it?

The reason I can see in your argument is "accountability to the public", but you seem to have the attitude that civilian businesses are separate from the public, while the government is representative of the public. I take the opposite view, first because members of the public run the businesses in question and are accountable far more directly to them (their customers) than any individual at NASA, and second because government accountability is a significant problem, and thus there's no guarantee of accountability by keeping space tech in the government sphere. We didn't vote out the government that oversaw the Challenger disaster. Were the heads of NASA even fired for it? I can't find any indication they were.

maybe

Wow, you should run the space program. If it's that easy we should see you creating relatively cheap ships lifting off pretty much whenever the country needs it, free of technical glitches.

Better yet, you should start your own space flight company. Show SpaceX how it's done. Because after private vessels are used for space flight, the next step is the creation of many different companies to foster competition.

(If you haven't picked up on my subtle hints, this is precisely WHY it's historic!)

Yeah try in the sky...kinda big don't you think? Geezzzzzzzzzz. Sorry was gonna comment but it is not worth it trying educate someone.

Did NASA build its first rocket and go straight to the Moon? No, years were spent preparing and fine tuning craft. SpaceX has big plans but a journey of a thousand steps (or to the Moon) begins with one small step.

Also, the reason for berthing (grabbing the Dragon by the tail as it were) instead of docking like other craft was simply a safety decision. This is still a demonstration flight.

It may be historic in some way. It is good to have space program in US going again --- this is good. But let us see what it is not. I do not see that it is a technical innovation --- somebody correct me. I do not see difference between this vehicle and the Russian old unmanned flights that every few months --- for years now --- take supplies to the Space Station, dock with it, unload, pick up garbage from Space Station, undock and take it back down to earh. This craft has been doing it WAY before Space Station was build. Remember, for a long time before, Russian space station MIR was up, being supplied with stuff and changing the crew.

I feel that the whole excitement about this being "private" sector is overdone. Our taxpayers money is a big part of this product. And not just money. Engineering, specialists, testing --- all at our expense. I wonder how much is actually private capital, and how much is it our, public capital.

We are hoping that competion will eventually get things better and cheaper. But what is the market? Outside of satelite launching, there is very little market. What I fear is the following. We will keep on subsidizing this business for decades to come. Just like military-industrial complex, our money is invested, while all the sales made to other countries generate private profit. This model is not workable. There is really no market here. This model is going back to the method of financing employed in old fashioned kingdoms, where private persons were awarded estates, lands, commercial interests in colonies, military, banks, etc. --- in exchange for certain services to royals. Today, we are almost worse off. Private interests get public capital, and convert it into private profit. The only beneficieary here are politicians that need to have their campaigns funded.

This business of launching satelites could go private. But this theory needs to be tested --- by eliminating all public finances to subsidize this business. But I am afraid, this will not be happening. What will happen is that our military will "contract" with these "private" corporations for more gadgets, and pay fortune for them. Just like we pay untold fortunes for military aircraft. This is not free market --- it is having public capital, the poor taxpayer --- over a barrell. If our coffers do not soon get filled --- no amount of cutting on health care, education, or retirements will be sufficient to make up the losses we suffer for such "privatizing". It makes one wonder who is running whom. So, instead of having state-run corporations, we may have corporations run state. I do not know which one is worse.

"Our taxpayers money is a big part of this product. And not just money. Engineering, specialists, testing --- all at our expense. I wonder how much is actually private capital, and how much is it our, public capital."

So what? I'd feel incredibly cheated if I knew that US companies had to make their designs from scratch because NASA wouldn't let them see their designs. SpaceX and its people pay taxes too, and that technology is as much theirs as anybody's.

"We are hoping that competion will eventually get things better and cheaper. But what is the market?"

Well, putting aside the supply drops to the astronauts our government insists on keeping in the ISS, that's kind of the sort of question for the business leaders and investors to decide, isn't it? You complain that this is happening through government largess, but that ignores the rather glaring fact that getting rockets to space was happening through government largess anyway; and for that matter, with much greater largess than this program is consuming, along with the horrible failures along the way. It's rather counterintuitive to complain about the cost of this program when it's saving the government millions of dollars from having NASA or the Russians do the job. Furthermore, yes, cutting entitlements (plus SS, for those of you who insist it isn't an "entitlement") would fully pay for this privitization, and a lot more. They consume THAT MUCH of the federal budget, and the space program is really small by comparison. Just some food for thought.

I wonder what that got to say now? My guess is try english class again sir. Lot of people without jobs from NASA don't know their political persuasion do you?

At least 5 thousand NASA jobs in my state were lost back in 2010.

Obama carried this state in 2008.

He WON'T this year.

TRUST ME.

Colored-guy and lestweforget,

President Obama did not "shut down" the Space Shuttle. The decision was made while President Bush was in office (in 2004), as we were setting our sights on other opportunities in space. Unfortunately, both President Bush and Congress ultimately dropped the ball on a successor to the Shuttle program, and has caused the current "space gap". Even if President Bush or Obama had changed their minds in 2008 or after, once the supply chain (halted in 2004-5) was stopped it would have taken more time and money than available to restart it.

I loved the Shuttle. I plan to go see Endeavor as soon as possible once it arrives in LA. I grew up watching it launch, cried when we lost Challenger and Columbia, and was sad when the final mission ended, but it was absolutely the right decision. The "space gap" is a failure by our politicians, from all sides of the aisle, to decide on a mission and properly fund the next generation of human spacecraft.

I agree. This "space gap" was a failure of leadership all around. In the end, there was not elegant way to bridge it. Actually, I do believe (please correct me here if not true) that our "space gap" started actually earlier. In fact, probably right at the time we spent a great deal of funds and brain-power on lunar expeditions, while Russia made a decision to move into unmanned craft to expore space. Russia also made a decision to put up space station (MIR). We followed the suit and moved more agressively in unmanned vehicles for space exploration, and made strategic decision to share Space Station. While we paid a lion's share of cost, it was Russian space station technology that we needed. Thus, Space Station's two critical modules --- command and control, and life support --- are based on Russian space station technology. Shuttle program was an innovation, as it redefined space vehicle concepts.

What was done to close "the space gap", is essentially a compromise. The reason we got into the "gap" was an earlier push --- during Reagan administration --- by private sector to "privatize" NASA. There was a pushback to rash decision making, resulting in a half-hearted support for NASA, and no movement in the privatization direction. The solomonic decision in fact "gave" to private sector the existing, well mastered technology of lower orbits --- where most satelites and Space Station "live". And it "gave" to NASA the more scientific and reseach intensive probe of deep space. This compromise will not be helpfull in the long run --- unless some changes are made along the way. The "privatized" space activities need to either become fully market supported, or we the public, need to get back the share of profits generated though our annual cash subsidies, publicly owned technology, using public servants (scientists, engineers), launching and testing facilities and crew, laboratories, materials, etc.

This approach may end up costing us much more. The program will no longer be under control of public and in public interest. Like anything else where profits are the main driver, the main business of this business may end up figuring out how many lobbyists will it take to get the necessary funds from Congress.

"The Tea-baggers cried foul when President Obama shut down the space shuttle.

(sigh) Once again, that decision was made, and set into motion in January of 2004...

Curious. Why woud Tea Baggers want to keep the Space Shuttle going? They are all about cutting federal expenditures. In fact, many decry our efforts to go into space at all.

American pride/military. It's OK to spend on government as long as the government is buying from the companies the rich own. It's just not ok to legislate healthcare. Obviously, the tea party has all their money tied up in military industries, aerospace and oil with not much in healthcare.

Wrong ....

Obama gutted NASA ....

Wrong...

Obama has maintained or increased NASA funding every year he has been in office, although I would like to point out that while the office of the President requests the funding, it is Congress that ultimately decides (and cuts) funding.

But don't let the facts get in the way of good political spin.

Nice try HF Mudd (nice handle from the old Star Trek series I see)....

I DID NOT say Obama shelved the space shuttle. Everyone knows that it was Bush who did BUT...the space program called the Constellation was to TAKE ITS PLACE.

The Constellation Program WAS scrapped by Obama, which resulted in 10s of THOUSANDS of NASA jobs LOST over a span of five states.

BTW, many of our NASA engineers that got the pink slip are now employed by countries such as India, China and Russia.

Our BEST and BRIGHTEST being outsourced over seas.

Yep, Obama has done WONDERS for NASA. Just ask former astronauts Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan.

I hope we can get out of this partisan sloganeering. Failure of leadership is responsible for the space gap we fell into. And there are many reasons for it, some of them due to selfish interests or just honest differences of opinion. Be as it is --- for a long time now, NASA received only half-hearted support from both parties. Reagan administration put in motion many destructive methodologies, some of them still sacred cows until today. Republicans tend to overemphasize the saintleness of privatization, while Democrats are less sanctimonious about it --- but no less interested in profits then Republicans. Both are equally to blame. We the public are also not without blame. We are not sufficiently hard-nosed to ask questions --- especially when privatization is at stake. it is easy to "privatize", that is, give away public assets to well-connected corporations. But much harder question is --- is it going to work. How will "privatization" work when for decades there will be no market to sustain the business? We cannot have taxpayers subsidies be the only business model in the absence of true market-based profit.

Obama did gut NASA, in spite of wonderfull speeches to the contrary. It took out of it the element that generated some income, and gave it a new mandate. But how is this new mandate going to work without funds? And now this "private" sector will actually COMPETE with NASA annually for discretionary spending. And who is likely to be the winner? Of course, the private lobbyists hired to bring bacon back to private space companies. And these companies will "contract' with Federal Government for products and services --- they will be full of promises. But years later, and many a trillion later, we may or may not see the product. It will always be behind schedule and over budget. And if we give contract to "another' company, their interests will always be linked through back channels --- just as they are today in military-industrial complex. Unless taxpayers puts the foot down, firmly, politicans --- including Obama --- will just cave in to corporate demands. We need to demand a share of profit for every penny we invest, and we need to charge-back these companies every hour provided by NASA scientists, or for using their facilities. They can avoid having to be accountable to taxpayer if they get into the business that makes money on the open market. But we are so outwitted by our politicians. They have us eating out of their hand, making us sing praises to wonderfull privatization! We just do not get it, and we wonder why the politicians think we are not too bright. It is because we are not.

That's the problem with Nasa. They need "tens of thousands" of people to launch a rocket into space. This is why it cost over $1 Billion per shuttle launch. They're a jobs program for certain congressional districts, not a space program.

"The Constellation Program WAS scrapped by Obama, which resulted in 10s of THOUSANDS of NASA jobs LOST over a span of five states"

Yes. Unfortunate, but Constellation was bad design, bad policy. The number of jobs doesn't make a bad idea good. And a project's figure of merit is not the number of people it employs...unless you're a Congressperson and they're in your state or district, of course.

And in that case, you're more interested in maintaining their jobs, so you can maintain your job. Not If/how well it works, or how much it costs the rest of the taxpayers,

Dude, I'm with you on the supply side knuckleheads, but this is not about that. It is about a private-public partnership and how well it worked. I'm as progressive as they come, but in the area of space, you've got to spread things out or the cronyism and ripping off of American taxpayers will continue. SpaceX did this for a fraction of the cost of the normal government contract for this sort of thing. And no $1400 toilets!!

Well, good thing that we have you to dampen their enthusiasm and boost up NASA's achievements.

It only makes sense that the research and development paid for by taxpayer money be finally disseminated to the private sector for us civilians to use as we see fit. People can tell whatever story they want about it; this is important for the future of space flight, not tiresome economic arguments.

Well put, Tom.

I only have to invoke two words that sums up the 'privatization' some here keeping harping on.

COMMERCIAL AIRLINES.

How are those workin' for ya?

Commercial air travel was an enormously successful innovation that created a worldwide network for business, spurred innovations by the thousands, first made the modern diaspora possible, and increased human mobility a hundredfold. Thanks to commercial air travel we are able to ship supplies and packages to distant locations in less than 24-hours, and it made foreign travel available to the common person. It's pretty much the best possible example of what opening up new technologies to private industry can do for an economy, and exactly the type of revolution we're hoping that this will bring to space travel.

All of which I'm pretty sure is the opposite of your point. Or did you seriously think that frustrating security procedures (which are the result of government policies) and financial trouble (thanks in part to union excesses) was a serious argument against the existence of an industry?

No SFacc...

I'm talking about escalating costs, maintenance flaws which all have resulted in many airline accidents. Space travel is a completely different animal and to let just any Tom, Dick or Harry with enough jack to launch whatever into space is a recipe for disaster.

I will agree with you about unions and you better bet your bottom dollar they'll get their mitts on this to some capacity. When that happens, that'll be like throwing gasoline on an already raging inferno.

Well, at the very least this shows why you usually need more than two words to make a coherent argument.

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the statistics on air travel accidents, so I'll have to assume you're telling the objective truth that the industry's safety record is in bad shape, but that's not much of an argument against privatization so much as deregulation, unless you have some evidence that government-run airlines are statistically safer.

As such, it isn't possible to make that argument for government-run space programs, since government-run aerospace programs haven't been exactly flawless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Accidents

So until we start experiencing problems just as bad or worse as we've gotten from NASA to create some more data, I hardly think the government is in any position to claim private spacecraft are unsafe.

Many accidents? Air travel is the safest form of travel known to man. It's even safer than walking.

private comm satelites coming soon.

You're right ....

It should have been covered on all major stations for the hook up at least , live feed ....

obama owns the news and he wanted the money spent on muslim relations

Ben..

This is so low tech that watching paint peel would be just as exciting to watch.

Hey lestweforget-3299938 ....

Good one .... "LOL"

Good to see you ....

lestweforget-3299938 ....

I though you were joking , but I see you may think that this venture has no significance at all ....

Space X and NASA working together to accomplish this mission is historical to our space efforts ....

But like watching paint peel ....

Come on , don't be so cold .... "LOL"

To answer your misrepresentations of logic in order:

"Cronyism" specifically refers to cases in which relationships between buyer and seller or employer and employee perverts and corrupts the ordinary mechanisms of market economics. It refers to a specific problem, and to blanket all public-private partnerships with it is like calling all corporate purchases graft.

Being a progressive does not mean having to demonize private enterprise. That is a radical leftist position, as is the opinion that the government should hoard technology paid for with taxpayer money so that the taxpayers can only benefit from it at the government's whim. And I don't even get how that's supposed to infringe democracy, so you'll need to explain that in greater detail if you want people to take it seriously enough to even argue against.

Assuming that business lobbying is inherently opposed to the public interest is a fair assumption, but implies a serious lack of critical thinking, as it assumes that all corporate interests are inherently and inexhaustably opposed to that of the customers that they rely upon for their existence. Not necessarily false though, which makes it the most respectable assertion you've made.

And finally, to dictate someone else's political stance based on one opinion you've heard is incredibly arrogant. Not to mention it's pretty ridiculous to label someone a corporatist because they're not visibly worried/angry about a particular corporate project. It might just be possible MJ has the sense to judge these things according to their individual and particular merits rather than prejudice.

Ah, yes. The wonderful "corporations don't charge us money" illusion! That one gets me every time!

You know, the successful strawman argument requires that the strawman bear some resemblance to the point of view you're disparaging. It would be as ridiculous as me claiming that some people think government services don't cost anything...

... Which you just implied, actually, by complaining that corporations will make us pay for their services. I may have seriously understimated how deeply I can exaggerate statist argument.

"Yea, Now that we've ridded ourselves of that nasty public sector influenc , and we're all comfortably under the illusion that the corporate sector won't make us pay for for the privledge,"

Sure. Now and then, I pay a big bad corporation for the 'privilege' of flying somewhere on Earth. This brings us a little closer to being able to do the same to get to some place in space.

Was NASA ever going to do that for me? At any price, any time in the future?

Even the Russians will sell me a Soyuz seat, for enough money. One day, Elon will offer a better deal.

Works for me...

weenies like you would whine about a free _______. We don't need to hitch hike with the ruskies anymore and it won't take private space exploration 20 years to go from capsule to spacecraft.

The shuttle program was shelved because it just wasn't working out. If the design does turn out to be viable with new technology or design developments, you should expect a new one to be constructed in the next decade or so.

I agree, to an extent: it IS sad that dropping failing designs and redeveloping older technology is what qualifies as progress, but that goes to show how badly NASA was doing with these projects. It seems space exploration needed a good dose of simple business sense.

This is indeed a glorified supply rocket/trash trawler. So what? We need those. And we'd prefer not to get them from Russia. There's still nothing but good news here.

ISS is in orbit right now. Supplies don't only go one way. Experiments, and garbage, need to come back to Earth from time to time. No one supply ship can accommodate everything, so spreading it around makes sense. So yes, just like your house, ISS needs to have the trash taken away periodically.

And what's with the hate on trash removal? Have you ever been in or near a city in the midst of a strike by sanitation workers? If so, you would never complain about trash removal and sanitation again.

Could you or anyone buy a Mercury flight?

Are you saying Shuttle never carried refuse down from ISS?

Are you saying Progress doesn't?

Of course, Progress re-enters destructively, and can't bring important stuff down from orbit, intact. Without Shuttle, we lost meaningful downmass capability for anything that couldn't fit in a Soyuz descent module along with its crew. Dragon is meant to return intact, giving us back some of that downmass capability...with more than just garbage, thanks.

Cargo...works both ways.

"The Russians have got to be LTAO!"

If anything, the Russians are worried that we won't be paying them $60 million USD for Soyuz seats to ISS, much longer...

And no, Constellation could not have done that (or much else) economically...

I have no idea why they speak against it. Why don't you enlighten us?

I have a better idea SF acc....

Why don't you get off your dead ass and research it yourself?

MIND BOGGLING how people like you get on these blogs and put your ignorance on display at an alarming rate.

Nah. If their argument isn't good enough for you to actually give it to us rather than simply claiming that some famous person happens to agree with your point of view, I don't really see a reason to bother with it. If their points were impressive, you would have used them yourself, assuming you haven't. It's kind of YOUR job to research your point of view and bring it to the rest of us, if you want to be convincing.

But that aside, really, you should have your MIND BOGGLED by the fact that people haven't heard the specific political concerns of a few astronauts on a particular subject. I'm sure your mind is tougher than that. Buck up!

ALL you have to do is go to YouTube and watch the congressional hearing that Neil Armstrong gave in support of NASA and his concerns with commericalizing space exploration.

Google the formal letter signed by astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan to Obama back in 2010 when Obama decided to scrap the Constellation program.

A 'few' astronauts, huh? I've given you the tools to research this for yourself. That comment right there screams that you REALLY need to do some background research on this subject.

See, the thing is, I don't inherently care what the astronauts think of commercializing space travel.

If they have something to say that's relevant to your argument, you should really just come out and put it in front of me. I'm not even asking for proof here, just a thesis statement. If you can't be bothered to just tell me why I'm wrong, I'm not sure why I should be bothered to research your argument for you, especially if it involves having to listen to a Congressional hearing. You can call it laziness if you want, but then what am I supposed to think of you, who starts an argument and then gives the opponent "the tools" to figure out why they're wrong? That's not how debate works.

So to bring this back to square one: yes, I think SpaceX is SO great. Why isn't it?

SpaceX is but a throw back to the sixties and the Mercury/Apollo rocket series. Why you think this is progress I fail to understand.

We scrubbed the shuttles while we STILL have astronauts in space. SpaceX CANNOT accommodate them there now or even within the next 5 years....IF they are lucky.

By accepting this 'piecemeal' option to space, we may have lost our greatest national inspiration and probably will never have it back again.

You are right when you say you are lazy. I want you to see for yourself and NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT so that the evidence is irrefutable.

Like I said, I don't inherently care what Armstrong or whoever has to say about this topic. I care what you have to say only because we happen to be posting on the same board on the same article, so his opinion only becomes relevant AFTER yours. In fact even now, after you stated your opinion, I STILL don't care what Armstrong's opinion is.

As for YOUR opinion, I believe it's actually been addressed above, but I'll state it again because I don't believe in just referencing people to my point: it's significant because a private venture has developed and built a rocket that has completed more than half its mission successfully. It's progress because they did it for less than NASA ever did, at a time when our expenditures on questionable government projects has become a serious issue. This is all relevant PRECISELY because they've done things like abandon newer, inefficient vessels like the shuttle that haven't worked out for an older design that they've decided is more cost-effective. And from here they aim to reduce the cost further and refine older technology that NASA had seemingly given up on. Without the government in charge of things, companies that make space craft will be free to pursue their own goals, which might lead to commercial space flight. Like, take your kids for a rocket ride around the Earth. That's a big deal, even if you think this particular launch isn't.

If it doesn't excite you, well, whatever. Maybe you'd be more excited by a story about Syria? I hear they're having a civil war or something.

'I don't inherently care what Armstrong or WHOEVER(?) has to say about this TOPIC.' (?)

This here is proof positive you don't a DAMN thing about the space program.

Since you refuse to do any independent research of YOUR OWN...

Enjoy this tin can that we embarrassingly now call our space program. Just find someone else who will give you Cliffs notes on this subject.

I'm commenting on a news article, not writing a bloody essay. If all you can do is whine about how I don't already know the facts that you can't seem to form a compelling argument with anyway (because I assume you're perfectly well researched and simply refuse to share your extensive data out of disdain or maybe hurt feelings or something), then your argument doesn't count for much, does it? Research does you no good if you can't make a point with it, and less if you don't even use it. But hey, I enjoyed your petulant tantrum about how I don't already know what you know. Very cute.

"Ask yourself this...if spacex is so great, why do former astronauts like Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan speak AGAINST IT?"

Why did Einstein never accept Quantum Mechanics? Because they don't understand it, and couldn't get beyond what they knew and were comfortable with.

Next question?

THANK YOU LILIAN!

Finally....there IS intelligent life here!