It's apparently going to be Mike Griffin. Mike is a sharp guy technically (probably the best in that regard in NASA history, if he's confirmed), but I think that this is good news/bad news. I'll explain why later, but I'm swamped right now.

I don't know what to think of this. Consider a quote from a speech that Spaceref has archived that somebody linked to in a previous thread...

At the same time, much cargo (including humans) does not need to be launched in very large packages. We desperately need much more cost effective Earth-to-LEO transportation for payloads in the size range from a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of pounds. In my judgment, this is our most pressing need, for it controls a major portion of the cost of everything else that we do in space. Yet, no active U.S. government program of which I am aware has this as its goal.

This seems reasonable, but what gives us any confidence that a U.S. government program would achieve this goal instead of smothering the endeavors able to achieve it (i.e., private sector endeavors)?

One solution I read somewhere. Rand, maybe? ;-)

Have NASA ofer $2000 ($1000? $3000?) per pound for delivery of bulk goods in a specified container to LEO. How it gets there is the launch companies business.

NASA supplies fuel tanks, for example, filled with 5,000 pounds of methane and offers $15 million with payment due upon delivery to a specified point in space. All risk and all decision-making belong to the vendor.

Elon Musk signs up and makes money.

I would support that 100%.

Bill, I've had much the same thought myself. I think it makes too much damn sense for them to do it, though.

In my experience, those that run NASA are big government types that don't like the private sector very much. Will Griffin be any different in this regard? I await Rand's further comments, and all y'all other guys' comments as well, for I am not familiar with Griffin.

He's got to be better than Goldin...

My cat could have run NASA better than Goldin. At least he's not shy about trying new things...

What's the best estimate of the 'going rate' for getting one kilo of water to near ISS orbit?

And what rate seems feasible right now for an independent?

Yeah? Well, my cat's hairballs...

Just kidding. I think my cat is more irritable than Dan Goldin anyways.

Al asks about the going rate to LEO. The answer depends on whether we are free to buy Russian & Ukrainian.

My limited google skills lead me to answer: Dnepr (a converted SS-18 Satan ICBM) as perhaps the cheapest commercially available cargo ride to LEO.

Actual delivery to and docking with ISS or a future CEV is more problematic.

Bigelow has purhased a Dnepr for his inflatable test and may buy another Russian rocket for Nautilus if Musk and SpaceX face additional delays.

The Dnepr looked like 10k$/kg or $4500/lbs.

So offering $3k/lbs would be both a reasonable cost savings _and_ a decent profit motive for independents. A statement "NASA will buy all water reaching orbit X for this set rate for the next ten years, and our price will be a fluctuating 66% of _our_ price to get a pound of water to the same orbit thereafter" is enough of a commitment to entice people. Once they've committed to buy _something_, an independent would have a little more flexibility than the satellite market provides (where each is an extensive contracting/insurance sort of process.)

From what I read, Mike sounds like a highly experienced and competent admin. I hope he has great success.

I've also gotten the impression that he has some strong opinions on the "right" way to do things. Heavy lift being high on his list. It will be intersting to see if he simply throws NASA money at his pet ideas and creates another large booddoggle gov't program of extremely limited utility. (Shuttle, ISS, etc)

--Fred

woo-hoo. it appears that this guy has got the guts to say some things out loud:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3080401
"It is beyond reason to believe the international space station can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 billion remaining to be invested in the program." Griffin told House lawmakers.

So he won't last long then.