I think there are two separate programs here and they’re being conflated.

There is the government funded National manned space flight program, which lately has shown itself to be an embarrassment, and then there are the commercial newcomers.

With respect to the latter I think that two of them, SpaceX and Sierra Space are especially worthy of pride. Both are innovating at a tremendous pace, inventing and pushing the boundaries of what we are capable of doing. I love that they are American companies.

On the other side is the SLS, which is a perfect example of politics and cronyism teaming up to produce a ridiculously overpriced product, but were it not for the contrast that SpaceX provides we would assume that’s what it costs to go to space and be split over proudly hailing it as our greatest space achievement and decrying it as a waste of money that would be better thrown at social programs. Given the contrast, the latter argument grows in strength.

Then there’s the Starliner program, which suffers from much of the same bureaucracy and cronyism, and billions later has yet to produce a flightworthy crewed vehicle.

Finally there’s Blue Origin, who were it not for their contract with ULA could be shrugged off as irrelevant, but their inability to provide the BE-4 engines for Vulcan Centaur has put that program in the position where they are about to lose their heavy launch capability for want of engines. That’s freaking embarrassing, but it’s not NASA.

The space programs of the 1960s were remarkable in their focus and commitment, but they were also much more expensive. The Apollo program cost upwards of $250 billion inflation adjusted. Artemis, as wasteful as it is, has cost a little over $90 billion. At their estimated $4B per rocket there’s a lot of room before we reach Apollo’s cost. We do not have the desire to fund at the level of Apollo. In fact we didn’t want to maintain that rate for Apollo, cancelling the last three missions. This is a perfect time for private enterprise to step in. We don’t need the government to manage the R&D any longer, and while government funding is still involved, it is at a much lower cost. Eventually I expect that to all but disappear.

Meanwhile NASA can focus on uncrewed missions, like probes and telescopes. Things that really expand our knowledge and push the limits of our ability, but don’t have the return that a corporation needs to operate. I look at the astonishing complexity of the Curiosity and Perseverance rover’s EDL phase that worked perfectly both times and glow with pride. That is NASA at its best, and I think that’s where they should stay. I felt the same ‘jump to your feet and cheer’ pride when Falcon 9 first landed successfully. That is an accomplishment for us all.

I see no need to be disappointed in our country’s space programs, but we have to expand our definition of what that means. We are doing great things both inside and outside of NASA, and we have our struggles both inside and outside of NASA. Overall I am far more optimistic about our future in space than I’ve been since the Apollo program.

The carnival rides are irrelevant and should not be confused with the real space programs that are doing great things.

I think there are two separate programs here and they’re being conflated.

There is the government funded National manned space flight program, which lately has shown itself to be an embarrassment, and then there are the commercial newcomers.

With respect to the latter I think that two of them, SpaceX and Sierra Space are especially worthy of pride. Both are innovating at a tremendous pace, inventing and pushing the boundaries of what we are capable of doing. I love that they are American companies.

On the other side is the SLS, which is a perfect example of politics and cronyism teaming up to produce a ridiculously overpriced product, but were it not for the contrast that SpaceX provides we would assume that’s what it costs to go to space and be split over proudly hailing it as our greatest space achievement and decrying it as a waste of money that would be better thrown at social programs. Given the contrast, the latter argument grows in strength.

Then there’s the Starliner program, which suffers from much of the same bureaucracy and cronyism, and billions later has yet to produce a flightworthy crewed vehicle.

Finally there’s Blue Origin, who were it not for their contract with ULA could be shrugged off as irrelevant, but their inability to provide the BE-4 engines for Vulcan Centaur has put that program in the position where they are about to lose their heavy launch capability for want of engines. That’s freaking embarrassing, but it’s not NASA.

The space programs of the 1960s were remarkable in their focus and commitment, but they were also much more expensive. The Apollo program cost upwards of $250 billion inflation adjusted. Artemis, as wasteful as it is, has cost a little over $90 billion. At their estimated $4B per rocket there’s a lot of room before we reach Apollo’s cost. We do not have the desire to fund at the level of Apollo. In fact we didn’t want to maintain that rate for Apollo, cancelling the last three missions. This is a perfect time for private enterprise to step in. We don’t need the government to manage the R&D any longer, and while government funding is still involved, it is at a much lower cost. Eventually I expect that to all but disappear.

Meanwhile NASA can focus on uncrewed missions, like probes and telescopes. Things that really expand our knowledge and push the limits of our ability, but don’t have the return that a corporation needs to operate. I look at the astonishing complexity of the Curiosity and Perseverance rover’s EDL phase that worked perfectly both times and glow with pride. That is NASA at its best, and I think that’s where they should stay. I felt the same ‘jump to your feet and cheer’ pride when Falcon 9 first landed successfully. That is an accomplishment for us all.

I see no need to be disappointed in our country’s space programs, but we have to expand our definition of what that means. We are doing great things both inside and outside of NASA, and we have our struggles both inside and outside of NASA. Overall I am far more optimistic about our future in space than I’ve been since the Apollo program.

The carnival rides are irrelevant and should not be confused with the real space programs that are doing great things.

What flight controls are installed in the Blue Origin Space Craft so the Mission Commander can take over manually and return to earth?

Asking for a friend.

I thought it was hilarious that those females were launched into space in a rocket that is shaped like a penis (can I say that here?)

I thought it was hilarious that they made a big PR splash about the "first all-female crew to space", conveniently forgetting that another woman went to ACTUAL space (on a non-carnival ride) on a solo flight and made several orbits. In the early 1960's.

Not really a crew....since there were no crew duties.

Since none of them were paying pax....More like a PR stunt for Bezo's to get some attention.

I flew as a crew on a C680 for a wealthy guy a few years ago. One mission was to fly his wife and a few of her girlfriends to Cabo for a long girls weekend, bringing them home a few days later. An expensive girls trip.

Well Bezos just eclipsed that by several orders of magnitude!

I would never, never get in a vehicle with the wife of one of the world's richest men, especially after the financial damage Bezos suffered from his first divorce. Too much chance of getting Putin'd.

Not in green.

I note the book ‘Bimbo’s in Space’ is available via Amazon. There you have it.

So you’d rather us just sit on the ground waiting for 10 billion dollar launches that never occur because of all the DEI hiring bullshit at NASA?

Actually it’s shaped more like a “personal massager”

Where are the helmets and pressure suits?

Asking for a friend.

The pioneers are always a different breed than the ones that use it as a commodity.

They delayed one flight due to a suit malfunction…..