Space logistics consultant Mike Snead has an interesting article at The Space Review on how to become a space-faring nation. I've glanced over it, but haven't had time to absorb the whole thing. I don't know how politically realistic it is, but what is most interesting to me is that the word "NASA" does not appear in it, anywhere.

I think that this was fundamental policy failure of the Vision for Space Exploration. While the vision was seen as important for the administration, just as was the case with Shuttle after Apollo, and space station after Shuttle, it was primarily treated as something for NASA to do after Shuttle and station, not an intrinsically important goal in itself. If it had truly been important, an entirely new entity would have been created to carry it out, without the baggage of the past, in much the same way that missile defense was viewed as too important to leave to the Air Force in the eighties, resulting in the formation of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO).

Rand - Least you get too excited, the gist of Mike's proposal is that the next President would bring into being an "infrastructure" that would make America a "space faring nation." He doesn't actually say how this would happen or what constitutes an "infrastructure." However, it is heavily implied that it would be a big government project, like the highways.

Rand - Least you get too excited

Actually, unlike you when you contemplate the Yellow Menace conquering the moon, I'm quite calm, Mark.

the gist of Mike's proposal is that the next President would bring into being an "infrastructure" that would make America a "space faring nation." He doesn't actually say how this would happen or what constitutes an "infrastructure."

Actually, he did, Mark:

fully-reusable space access, in-space logistics depots, and in-space reusable space transportation—needed to safely open space to routine human and robotic operations.

That's infrastructure. NASA has no current plans along those lines, and has selected an architecture that bypasses its development.

However, it is heavily implied that it would be a big government project, like the highways.

That must be why he had those words in there about "public/private partnerships." That may be your (mistaken) inference, but he doesn't "heavily imply" it.

And as I said, he made no mention of NASA.

I would submit that no it is not infrastructure but rather technology that may or may not be cool to have. I'm also very suspicious of a government project, even in the guise of a "private/poublic partnership", that chooses one method of accessing space over another. I suspect that should this program be adopted, someone soon will think of other, better ways to get into apace (space elevators?).

The best way to create "infrastructure" from a government policy standpoint is the way NASA is doing it with COTS. Let the private sector compete rather than build something by government fiat.

I would submit that no it is not infrastructure but rather technology that may or may not be cool to have.

And I would submit that neither of those words mean what you think they mean.

I'm also very suspicious of a government project, even in the guise of a "private/poublic partnership", that chooses one method of accessing space over another.

There was not enough specificity in his proposal to even agree with that characterization of it.

Why is it you're not suspicious of an actual government program (ESAS) that is doing exactly that?

The best way to create "infrastructure" from a government policy standpoint is the way NASA is doing it with COTS.

No, there are many better ways to do it than that. COTS is an improvement over what NASA has done before, but the notion that it is the "best" way is laughable.

An "infrastructure" includes a number of companies competing with each other for an expanding space transportation market, which this plan does not contain.

ESAS is not designed to create a trans lunar commercial infrastructure. It is solely a means to deliver small groups of explorers to the Moon and other places.

The fact is that NASA's plan, COTS, is far more commercial friendly that this big government, monopoly plan that you seem to be embracing.

I see, Mark. Apparently we read different articles, because the one I read bears no resemblance to your nutty description of it.

However, it is heavily implied that it would be a big government project, like the highways.

Mark, as someone who (unlike you and Oler) has actually worked in the highway industry, let me say this as clearly as I can -- your belief that only big government can build roads has no basis in reality.

It shouldn't be hard for a resident of Texas to find that out because the State of Texas is a leader in highway privatization.

Texas is doing that because the state recognizes that the "big government projects" are neither the only approach nor the most efficient approach.

I'm also very suspicious of a government project, even in the guise of a "private/poublic partnership", that chooses one method of accessing space over another.

Huh??? Are you suddenly suspicious of ESAS, rather than a cheerleader for it?

Have you forgotten that ESAS is a government project that chooses one method of accessing space over all others?

Or are you just being dishonest?

I suspect that should this program be adopted, someone soon will think of other, better ways to get into apace (space elevators?).

Yet, you want to fund ESAS to compete with those space elevators.

More importantly, you want to fund ESAS to compete with vehicles that could be built right now, which do not require antigravity, warp drive, or space elevators.

The best way to create "infrastructure" from a government policy standpoint is the way NASA is doing it with COTS. Let the private sector compete rather than build something by government fiat.

COTS isn't allowing private companies to compete. Only one company is being funded to develop its vehicle. Everyone else gets to go out of business.

The only "competition" is between SpaceX, which is getting $200 million from NASA, and Lockheed, which is getting $10 billion. That's hardly a level playing field.

According to the Launch Service Purchase Act, NASA should be buying 100% of its post-Shuttle launch services commercially. Not the 2% you think private enterprise should be allowed to compete for.

Offering just 2% of what the law requires is hardly a strong commitment to private enterprise.