Re: Orion/SpaceX: It seems like a lot of effort (some of it redundant)is going into developing individual components of this system but no one is giving much thought to how the final space transportation infrastructure will look like or function when finished, or what its mission will be.

I would prefer to see various components being developed simultaneously, such as heavy and light lift capability, emergency escape-from-orbit vehicle, a quick-prep resupply ship, space assembly and port orbit facilities, (as opposed to easily accessible orbital work stations), a deep space manned probe for long-term planetary exploration and a carbine version of the same for shorter near-earth missions (this is what Orion looks like to me). Other components might include a space tug (generic deep space propulsion module)or an expendable habitat module. Regardless of the final mission requirements, we'll have a tool box filled with solutions.

In this way, we would have a variety of vehicles and support facilities (as well as communications networks)in place which could be quickly assembled for an unexpected mission of opportunity. And if for any reason, if any one component failed, or would be replaced with something better, the rest of the modules would still be usable. We would have a smorgasbord set of options in place, instead of an a la carte solution to just one problem.

I would think this sort of arrangement would be more flexible. Individual components could be farmed out to different companies (or countries) for development, and if there were delays or problems with some there would still be some alternate missions possible with existing hardware until that particular component was on line. Likewise, an unexpected technological breakthrough in any one area (such as a quantum leap forward in propulsion technology) would not make the whole system suddenly obsolete.

This approach would have the additional advantage of distributing the space effort to many separate companies and countries, and it would be less vulnerable to an economic or political failure in any one authority. Some catastrophe like a war or depression might make the space infrastructure less capable overall, but it would also make it less likely to seize up altogether. This would make its long turn survival more secure.

Granted, it might make better sense for one massive super-agency to plan this all out and manage it carefully, but massive super agencies, as we have seen, have a tendency to be unstable and prone to ossification--or to just lose their funding and public support.