Normally I disagree with this writer's perspective but I too am shocked that he's speaking sense here. Too bad it took all these years and many TENS OF BILLIONS for the fervent Space Cadets to realize that the ineffective, ultra-expensive Shuttle and ISS needed to be droped to save the space program. I remember inchoate screams from the MSNBC board in the later 90s when I uttered such sentiments and stated that NASA was a JOBS program not a space program. Folks who post here today back then were expecting a crewed Mars Program late this decade and regarded any criticism of NASA doctrinaire big $ programs as anti-space. Hardly.

Right about here we normally get the "No Buck Rogers, No Bucks" refrain which totally misses the point. A far less expensive crewed space initiative has always been possible. Those who said it would be too risky ignore that NASA with their high priced quality (sic) has fried almost 20 astronauts and that NASCAR kills even more drivers.

In my ideal universe, the govt would do a few risky R&D type technology initiatives and offer both prizes for private risk taking capital to pioneer the most effective LEO and Lunar access methods and subsequent MARKETS for the developed products.