More Infighting Among The Faithful

Wow. What a bunch of primadonnas.

the main prospace site is an announcements page of which the third announcement states "Due to resource and time limitations we will not be able to hold our annual March Storm event this year.". this was posted just over a month ago and now because someone else wants to do it they suddenly find the time and resources?

Personally I think both groups are part of the problem and not the solution.

"The biggest fight is over the smallest pie."

(which is an argument IMHO to circumvent the political process and do space development only within capital markets)

It is only a small stretch to say that the capability for a fully commercial launch vehicle carrying humans has existed since Apollo. The companies that made everything from the 1st stage nozzles to the capsule could have spun off a design from NASA's and built it using company or market investment. All it would take is (a) permission from the government and (b) a workable business plan.

Government permission apparently is regulated by the FAA/AST under the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. So for 25 years, the only impediment has been commercial viability. But nobody has taken up the challenge.

So what does that say about the viability of "circumvent[ing] the political process and do[ing] space development only within capital markets"? Answer: It has not yet been viable without NASA as a customer, and it's a bold gamble that it would be viable now even with NASA.

How does NASA get any money to pitch into that market, and the mandate to do it? From Congress -- via political process. So the political process is indispensable for doing things that might be good for the country that are not (yet) commercially viable.

Your post is correct, but omits the fact that commercial space, through the capital markets, has been very successful since Apollo. Telecommunications of many types, commercial imagery, and direct consumer radio and television are quite successful businesses.

So, the business case closes for viable businesses, and the government does not stand in the way.

'Commercially' delivered cargo to space appears to have a viable business case, but the destination (ISS) and the funding are supplied by the government, payed in a typical incremental government fashion after 'milestones' are complete.

Using the airmail-to-airlines analogy, this government-subsidized 'commercial' service may someday be viable without government involvement at all. However, the analogy breaks down unless there is a non-governmental demand for the service. Airline tourism and business travel worked, after the technical bugs were worked out on cargo delivery, because there were destinations people wanted to visit. What 'destination' is there in space for enough passengers to visit that will really support the recurring cost of travel?

Perhaps space tourism, space power generation/beaming, on-orbit satellite servicing, and propellant depots in space just do not have a business case that closes, yet. Perhaps they will after the government has subsidized development (to the tune of $3B) of this 'commercial' delivery service. Perhaps they will, someday. I certainly hope so.