The president and members of Congress are elected officials who, allowing for sideways presidential elections like the last one, are elected by the same tax payers whose tax dollars are used to fund NASA. Not "direct" but the connection is there.

SpaceX, on the other hand, is owned by Elon Musk and a handful of other entities. They are beholden to know one, certainly not the American people.

'...SpaceX ... will have no "monopoly" on getting to Mars. That isn't to say it might not be the only entity actually able to do so for some fairly considerable period....'

Which works out to "monopoly" if that period is measured in years or decades.

'I entirely agree that "time will tell" whether NASA has a useful future of any significance. Even should NASA be rendered utterly redundant by a private sector-led charge into space, though, I suspect we will still differ fundamentally about whether this constitutes "harm."'

Mars private fiefdom of entrepreneur with the only manned spacecraft going to Mars, assuming NASA is defunded and disbanded because the public and politicians perceive Musk as having "beaten" it. What could possibly be wrong with that?

"There will be enough propellant to slow down. The SpaceX Mars mission architecture is hardly unique in requiring the engines to work"

My point was it will take more fuel than a Hohman transfer orbit, and you acknowledged his preferred transfer orbits need more fuel. And I didn't say anything about the engines.

"..Despite NASA's manifold and obvious failures over the decades - capped by the antiquated monstrosities of SLS and Orion..."

Orion has only flown once, and SLS hasn't launched yet, so neither can be called failures. As far as "antiquated," remember that Dragon is a capsule launched by a 2-stage rocket. Hardly an original concept. And the Russians had solar panels on their capsules long before SpaceX existed. Just a different part of antiquity.

"... I have no interest whatsoever in suppressing your opinions..."

You already did with the "change allegiances" remark. Can not be unsaid.

Lockheed Martin: 'How can we keep astronauts safe, healthy and productive for a three-year journey into deep space?' Source: http://lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/mars-orion.html

Elon Musk: '"It would be, basically, 'Are you prepared to die?' If that's OK, then, you know, you're a candidate for going," he said.' Source: https://www.space.com/34259-elon-musk-first-mars-...

Spin it all you want, somehow think "prepare to die" isn't as good as an approach to crew safety as "how do we keep them safe?"

You wrote: "The people who first ride BFR to Mars will be cut from the same cloth as the Apollo crews of yore"

If Musk wants to convince people his BFR is safer than the base camp, "prepare to die" is not the way to go. Oh, and this is the same guy who wants people to ride his rockets from point to point on Earth.

".. Where are you from, if I may ask?..."

New York State. I live 200 miles from NYC.

"... I suspect I have rather more company in that respect than you do with your seeming belief that Mars is, or should be, some sort of exclusion zone reserved to NASA..."

NASA is a government agency funded by tax dollars. It belongs to all of us and is responsible to all of us. SpaceX is a privately held company and responsible to its owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Ownership.2C... Is it better for a private company, out to make money, has a monopoly on getting to Mars?

"The steadily increasing probability that SpaceX, and other NewSpace companies, will incrementally render more and more of NASA redundant simply doesn't elicit in me the frissons of fear and loathing it seems to elicit in you."

Time would tell whether that does more harm than good in the long run.

"SpaceX has said it intends to shorten transit times to and from Mars as much as it can by using transfer orbits which are less mingy of fuel consumption than Hohmann minimums. More transit time would - everything else being equal - allow for more Murphy-esque misadventure."

It also means more fuel is needed to slow down. So the engines had better work. More fuel means less payload means less things to help the colonists survive on Mars.

"Your contention that SpaceX's plan is somehow more reckless, risky and dangerous than Lock-Mart's proposal doesn't withstand even cursory scrutiny."

Remind Elon of that. https://www.space.com/34259-elon-musk-first-mars-... He's aiming for a Mars landing in seven years and he says the colonists should be prepared to die. He seems to think it's risky!

"You seem, fairly obviously, to be severely possessed of an irrational reverence for legacy contractor firms and for NASA along with an equal or greater disdain for newcomers to the space field - especially SpaceX. I would advise you to reconsider what I feel to be your ill-chosen allegiances"

I'm going out of my way to be as nice as possible so as to avoid saying something that could get me banned:

NO.

And I am extremely offended that you would even suggest that.

My opinions and my "allegiances are my business. If that leaves me unhappy should Musk sweep NASA into the dustbin of history. But for you to even think of trying to get someone with a dissenting opinion to drop it...Forget it. As long as the First Amendment still means something (notwithstanding Herr Trump's best efforts), I will speak up and say what I want and if you think I shouldn't, that's too bad. Musk is not emperor of America yet, so until then, I will speak up.

"...you also indict SpaceX's proposed Mars architecture as being, in some unstated way, far more dangerous than the spitballed Lock-Mart proposal. There is, though, simply no factual basis upon which one can make such a sweeping assumption...."

Anyone tell Elon Musk that? Last year, he was the one who said his colonists should be prepared to die, and he would not want to go with them because he wanted to see his kids grow up. See: https://www.space.com/34259-elon-musk-first-mars-... His words, not mine.

Maybe you should write to Elon and tell him how safe his architecture is?

So you stayed up late (assuming you're in the US) and did all that typing and all that came out of it is a slight disagreement. The difference between me saying that Musk wants to upstage NASA, and you saying SpaceX is free to do whatever it wants even if it makes "NASA look bad" is one of emphasis. Where I see Musk's Hubris, you think SpaceX is doing fine and it is NASA that is "senile" while its contractors are "slow" and "lazy." For someone who chides me about protecting NASA, you're intent on promoting/protecting SpaceX.

If Musk succeeds in planting his colony on Mars sometime in the next ten years, that's the end for NASA. Not just SLS and Orion are done, but so is planetary exploration. Why send a rover to Mars when Musk has his colonists? Bye bye JPL. Why plan a probe anywhere when Musk has his fleet? He will go down in history as the Steve Jobs of space, single-handedly opening space to colonization. And yes, all the naysayers (including me) will be on the wrong side of history. Will that be good in the long run? Instead of NASA, a government agency "owned" by the taxpayers being the " center of the space-related universe," the universe would be taken over by a private company beholden to one man. And don't think he doesn't know it. Why else do it?

But to get to that point, Musk has to have EVEYRYTHING that has to be figured out figured out in less time than anyone else becaue he is the one who has given himself deadlines in the near future. If four cargo flights and two manned flights are going to land on Mars in 2022 and 2024, there's a lot that has to be ready by 2022 at the latest. That's only five years away. When asked about details, he says, "We're just building the transportation system. When it's available, others will do other things." Huh?

Meanhwile, the BFR is smaller than the ITS, and applications other than Mars are being promoted, like a Moon base. It was one thing to do Dragon. NASA launched the first capsules decades ago, so a capsuple on a two stage rocket was easy, not out of obligation but because he didn't have to break new ground. But so much ground has to be broken that no one has broken before, is he talking Moon base because he wants a fallback if Mars is more than he can chew (and one-up any talk of Moon missions from NASA)?

And oh, yes, he's not above going after competition. In 2015, Musk's congressional backers did square off with ULA's over the RD-180 engines. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/space-star-... Stopping the importation of RD-180's would screw up the Atlas V. Not only does it compete with SpaceX for military satellites, but it is the booster of choice for the RD-180 Starliner, the other Commercial Crew vehicle. Think Musk doesn't know that? The FY2011 budget didn't become law, but the result was that by statute, the Orion can't be used to resupply the space station. How convenient for Mr. Musk.

Sure, he can pull off his Mars landing by 2024. But don't underestimate what he has to do to get there, and don't think his motives are entirely pure. I taken neither on blind faith.

How separate is "separate"? Lockheed has proposed a Mars base camp, and recently came out with the lander that would travel between it and the Martian surface. Since NASA has not formally begun a manned Mars program, it's a corporate proposal NASA could use but not part of NASA per se.

The point about Musk not going is not because I think he should be a CEO pilot but because he is acknowledging the risks, and the reason it is so risky is because he is making a point of going so soon. In contrast, Beoing/LcokMart/NASA want to be sure we can get a crew out and back safely. Musk's approach to crew safety for Mars seems to be an ironclad waiver.

Remember how Musk testified to a congressional committee that because Atlas V uses Russian RD-180 engines in the first stage, the government should just up and cancel the Atlas V? Oddly enough, not only is the Atlas V competing with Falcon 9 for national security payloads, but it is the booster for the CST-100 Starliner, the other commercial crew vehicle. (Atlas V was also a launch vehicle for the Orbital ATK Cygnus cargo vehicle before the Antares returned to flight.) Atlas V goes away, whaddya know, Musk is the only game in town for commercial crew.

I'm convinced Musk wants to be the only game in town, with NASA gutted and reduced to a government funded R&D lab at his disposal, and no other contractors in the game.

If I'm "one of the people," then there must be other out there. So I have company.. :) I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't think 2024 is the mid-2020s. And he's the one who said he would be landing people on Mars by then. He's said it many times. His credibility is on the line if he doesn't make it, not mine.