Hi Geoff,

Not harass...but rather finesse the DOD

The DOD has the largest space budget on the planet and an order of resources somewhere around 1000 times NASA's.

NASA was given control of space activities from ARPA in 1958 by the NAtional Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. Most folks know that.

However, on March 17, 1959 Directive 5105.15 re-established all military and military related space activities in the hands of the DOD and ARPA.

Well... guess what folks...space is considered a military interest. ALL major projects at NASA need to get cleared by the DOD.

The reason NASA shoots themselves in the foot over space tourism is because space tourism is extremely frowned upon by the DOD.

The reason the new administrator does not want to send folks to Mars - is because the DOD does not like that idea either.

You see how this works now?

If the DOD doesn't like something, NASA doesn't like something. Oh yes, NASA may have employees who are excited as heck about manned exploration - but NASA the institution is a second-rate lap dog of the DOD and always will be.

Tom is right. It has to be done by private or foreign interests. The most likely is actually a private party launching from a foreign nation (preferably one far away from US agents and US sabotage)

Yes, the sabotage of the bigger private rocket groups and space enthusiasts is a very likely scenario. Seem unlikley? Well just do a FBI FOIA on some of these companies, and you will see that these folks are clearly on the radar screen of the US government.

Why?

Quite simple.

The aforementioned US assets in space comprise the greatest existing technological superiority the US maintains over the rest of the world. Our many varying satellites, military network and classified devices are considered too valuable to be observed, reached, or made accessible.

For a moment I will let you into the minds and cloaked rooms of the 'Feds'.

Fed1:
"Damn! These private rocket guys are getting better all the time. One day they may be able to launch stuff that can target our XXXXX system."

Fed2:
"Has anyone looked into where they are gettting their funding? Do these guys make lots of foreign trips? What about their backgrounds? How many of these guys would sell their services to our enemies? How many of these folks are militia-types or anti-government? How many have foreign nationals on their payrolls?"

Superior Fed3:
"I agree. We need to allocate resources and keep track of all these various companies and individuals. This way we will know if and when our involvement is warranted."

Fed5:
"The regulations will keep them in check."

Fed2:
"If they abide by them. Our radar shows there are a lot of folks who are not abiding them, and by the time we determine the launch site and get a team there, we find nothing but singed weeds. Clearly some of these folks are building and testing clandestinely and launching from new locales with each test."

Fed1:
"Yes a proactive stance is the only approach to these rocket types."

Superior Fed3:
"I agree. Do what is necessary."

Fed7:
"Are we monitoring the bulletin boards and internet places where these types hang out? Could we cover a lot of bases by monitoring these folks projects from the inside?"

Fed5:
"Is that really necessary? Isn't that sort of like domestic spying against our own people?"

Fed7:
"Monitoring bulletin boards is not spying - for chrissakes man! It's in the public domain! You want to wake up to a call from NORAD tomorrow about a system which has been hit by an unidentified projectile - which originated right here in the US?"

Fed5:
"Of course not but..."

Superior Fed3:
"No more arguments. We agree on the validity of the potential threat. Do what is necessary."

--------------------------

Etc. Etc. Etc.

So working through military channels on projects with joint interest, or working completely outside them is the only hope for manned space and more space.

NASA is a dead end.