The launch window for the shuttle (to the ISS) is approximately 10 minutes long.

It’s a good point, and one worth repeating. But to present it on flawed arguments doesn’t help the ’cause’, if I’m allowed a little hyperbole But I’ve already spoken on those, no need to repeat. (My main objection to how you phrased your objections was that it seemed to me pretty insulting to the teams of NASA/contractors engineers that routinely do what you seemed to suggest them being incapable of.)

My thoughts on commercializing spaceflights are that it will give us cheaper, general issue type, flexible, launch capability. Companies can focus on their business plan, and execute it, without too much outside interference. They can react quicker to technology improvements, and competition will drive that.

With respect to more transient issues I fear that they might be *less* able to quickly respond, simply by being unable to retain a lot of “just in case” engineers. (Employees being the most costly asset of any company, I think an old Jewish curse is: I wish you many employees..) I can’t think of a better way to describe what I mean here… Being on commercial competitive budgets will require cuts with respect to how NASA operates. I fear that there won’t be much money for “might be useful” personnel.

Moving the task of “mundane” launching (opposed to cutting edge, commercially uninteresting launching) away from NASA may help to focus it more on science. It may be easier to get funding for cutting edge science when the launch part of the budget gets cheaper.

As others have mentioned, there will still be a need for entities like NASA, just to make sure that science will still be done, to invest in things that might only get returns generations later, to do things that are too risky for companies whose principle guidance will always be: survival of the business, and making money.

I think we will see evolving SpaceShipOne-type craft developing orbital capabilities. Once the momentum gets going, mass production will lower prices. If the momentum *really* gets going, then deaths will be accepted as a risk of the trade. Not in the sense that businesses won’t try to prevent accidents (of course they won’t, it would be bad PR), but in the sense that a fatal accident won’t stop the industry from progressing. Like deaths in cars and airplanes don’t stop those particular industries (but do lead to more safety, generally).

Still, the real break we need first is a dramatic improvement in the dollars/weight ratio for launching into orbit. My personal thoughts on that (not that I’m even remotely qualified to say anything sane about it ) are that it might require a new discovery in physics. Who knows, maybe research into dark energy (which seems to oppose or counteract gravity) might give us Star Trek.

I think I’ve stuck my neck out far enough on this one, have at it! Thanks for responding, Phil.

Rob- SpaceX is not interested in funding science directly, though Elon has mentioned some pie in the sky ideas of settling Mars. Plenty of science could get done on the way.

Evolving Squid – There’s only one investor in SpaceX right now…Elon. We’ll see how things go on their COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) contracts with NASA.

SpaceX only has to answer to investors, and it’s probably considered a fair answer to say “well, that didn’t work but we learned soemthing, so let’s have another go and not repeat the same mistake.”

If NASA says that, there are calls for heads on sticks, mass floggings, etc.

That tends to make NASA a bit more cautious… Not that I’m saying SpaceX is cavalier – far from it, but their perspective as a private enterprise is simply different, and teh difference makes them more flexible.