Department of Galactic Exploration

In case that all seemed too pro-SpaceX:

1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.

2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.

I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.

I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.

I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.

At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.

Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.

SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.

>the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work.

Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it:

* The main stage (aka core stage), essentially a repurposed Space Shuttle external fuel tank with engines bolted on, is contracted out to Boeing, with so far one launch and two completed production units in at least ten years of production.

* The main engines, which are refurbished SSMEs used as throwaways, are contracted out to Aerojet Rocketdyne.

* The SRBs are contracted out to Northrop Grumman, and the first eight launches will all be reusing the old Space Shuttle SRBs.

* The second stage, a repurposed Delta IV second stage, is contracted out to United Launch Alliance which is basically Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

* Finally, the Orion is contracted out to Lockheed Martin and Airbus. Incidentally, this is the only "new" component of the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

>Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.

Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs.

There was value in manned programs before, we needed to figure out WTF human bodies will do in space. We figured that out at least 20 years ago. Now we need to keep contriving excuses to keep ISS flying and there's barely enough commercial interest in manned space utilization.

No, cut it all. Until we reach the next paradigm shift where we have to send men out into the black again to gain answers, robots can do everything a man could for cheaper, safer, longer, and faster.

I don't think anymore absolutely 100% sterilization of all life on Earth is possible, we always end up talking about 99.999999% or similar. With exception of maybe super/hypernova of our Sun which ain't possible, or black hole passing directly through/very close to Earth, tearing apart every single atom making up this planet including all of us on quark level.