Who expected the NY Times to support anything the Bush admin sponsored? I certainly didn't.

Major news NASA Administrator Discusses Agency Transformation

Noted from the nasawatch site:

Media representatives are invited to NASA Headquarters Thursday, June 24. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe will outline the agency's Transformation, which is an important component of the final report from the Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy.

Ok..Spaceshipone did its thing..however does anyone realize this is a " Been there..Done that "?...Granted the x-15 program was financed by the government but the basic concept ws there..one pilot,suborbital..run way landing..If Nasa and the US governMENT WOULD stop paying $50.00 for a screwdriver YOU CAN GET AT Sears for 6 bucks.. our spaceprogram would bE ROBUST and cost a fraction of what it does.... If Rutan put his money into working with the government on composite tanks,the Venture Star would be flying today....This flight is never going to get US BACK TO THE Moon and onto Mars...How important would the Wrights flIGHT BE IF The Government had done it befor them ? Think about it

You are right 40 years from military try to civilian. What did the military do after it gained this little bit of knowledge with it's craft? The Mercury program was the next military program that Nasa borrowed from to get a man into orbit. How long was the military effort for it? If we multiple or scale that time for the x15 to suborbital flight then we would have an estimate for how long it will take tbe civilian sector to achieve that mile stone.

Funding is part of the answer but as you noted responsibility as if it was the individuals money that was spent is also needed if Nasa is to remain even in a reduced capacity in the future.

More news out on the military use of EELV launch vehicles on the spacetoday.net site.
"The Air Force, under Congressional pressure, said this week it will study whether it is in its best interests to consolidate its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program into a single launch vehicle. Last week a report by the House Appropriations Committee recommended that the Pentagon support only a single vehicle, saying the expense to supporting both was not worthwhile. That both vehicles are necessary to provide the military with "assured access to space" should one vehicle be sidelined for an extended period."

umm no the venture star would not be flying today under any circumstances. Unless it was compleatly privatly funded and built outside this country.

Venture Star was being "built" by Lockhead martin. Venture star prommised cheaper access to space and to bring launch costs down signifigantly then the shuttle. However Lockhead Martin is part of the partnership with Boieng called USA (United Shuttle Associates) which is the contractor in charge of operating the shuttle. Venture star was a direct competor of USA that would have brought in less money in the short term.

Only true way to get out under the heals of the Shuttle triumberate that is The Political Machine of NASA, Boeing, and Lockheed, short of grounding the shuttle, is to go out of country to build it and make sure you have no contracts with any lockheed, boeing or their suppliers.

Only reason spaceshipone got this far was that its a suborbital flight, it does not threatan the shuttle. Once they go orbital, then there will be huge amounts of buecratic red tape, impedeing it. WHich hopefully the shuttle will be dead by then, or they'll goto another country to finish it off. New Zealand might be a good choice if you can convoence them that this is the first step in creating a cheap and safe solar powergenerating satelite.

WHen ever the shuttle is threatened NASA turns into a mother bear protecting her favorite cub. At the expense of all others. Only reason the space station was fought for was it gives a reason why to keep the shuttle. (all the US parts are designed to fit in the shuttle)