Phil makes the point that the popularity of the Moon landing was the feat itself not the technology yet dismisses the feat of going to Mars. He also mischaracterizes proposed Mars plans as repeats of Apollo flags and footprints. These plans have far more science than all of Apollo combined in one mission. With those obvious errors of logic and perception I'm a little skeptical that he has the answers to the failures he accurately describes. His recommendations certainly warrent consideration however and all seem at least partly plausible to me. I must say I'm warming to the idea of pulling the plug on the shuttle and the ISS if there is not going to be a commitment to major improvements on the current plans. I agree they are going to be a waste of money as currently planned. I've always feared however that this is a can of worms that could shutdown the space program all together rather than improve it if opened.

I think the NASA as a bogeyman to private enterprise concept is baloney. The true bogeyman to private space access is economics/high costs. There are few scenarios likely to result in private access to space. One of them is government sponsored development of lower cost technology just as the current technology was developed. NASA wasting money on fruitless endevours rather than developing new technology is a barrier however.

Regards,
Mark