I missed the very beginning of his luncheon talk, but here are my quick notes (somewhat paraphrased):

Early adopters have created all technological advances, not just “playboys trying to impress their friends” — he has talked to many of them, and they think they’re advancing technology and humanity, and that’s important to them. Introduces Tuskegee airman, Leroy Gillead, whom they’re giving a flight to. He is given a standing ovation by the audience twice, once when Jeff points him out in the front row, and again after Jeff explains who he is and what he did, to those who were unaware.

We are just starting to learn about space technology. These vehicles will revolutionize space research, previous efforts took too much time and effort to turn around experiments with NASA. No idea how much speed and energy will happen when people think they can make money at something. Imagine NASA budget at a trillion dollars. That’s how much goes into R&D in the semiconductor industry. Space is a low-technology area, “It is forever 1960.” Using materials, electronics practices that would have been recognizable twenty years ago. His phone puts more bits through a tiny port than all the cables in a current spacecraft, because when millions are invested in an experiment, no one wants to take a risk with unproven (in space) technology. When things get cheap, it’s no longer a risk to use a chip more modern than 1980.

Reusable affordable suborbital will finally break the logjam of why things haven’t been happening faster in space. Everyone’s known since von Braun that the key to low costs is reusable spacecraft. Everyone’s known since 1972 how not to do that (take an expendable and try to make it reusable) [referring to Shuttle]. If the time on the ground and touch labor are too great, assets are underutilized and too much money is spent on wages and salaries. Reusability isn’t adding something, it’s subtracting things. Vehicles don’t spring full-blown from the brow of Zeus. When they built the first vehicle, they weren’t ready, so they incorporated lessons into the second one, and they still aren’t ready, and they may not be ready until the sixth one or more. Won’t learn in a few flights or a few hundred flights. Will need thousands of flights to learn how to build a cost-effective reusable orbital system. Technological maturation they’re doing is learning how to get to orbit affordably in multiple generations of vehicles. Early adopters are enabling, just as they did with ocean-going luxury vessels and aircraft, allowing millions to participate, and we owe them a debt.

Question: Is it necessary to go through suborbital to orbit with a reusable vehicle, or can you go straight to orbit with enough money [presumably in reference to Elon Musk’s approach].

Hesitant to give his own opinions priority over that of his colleagues. Of course he thinks his way is best, or he’d be doing it a different way, but the great thing about what’s happening is that multiple approaches are being tried. No industry has ever been created with a single entrant. Need competition to force continuous improvement. Does believe that thousands of flights will be necessary to learn how to do it, and he has limited resources, sees suborbital as an affordable way to gain the experience.

Question: Cameron told NASA that they need not only to tell their story better but to have a better story to tell. Do we have a story to tell?

Yes, but not until recently. Events make people think differently. No one thought that one could buy their way into space until Tito did it. No one will believe that researchers can fly suborbitally until we start doing it. Once it starts happening, it will have always been obvious and everyone knew that we could have done it all the time.

Q: X-15 was useful, but some vehicles [e.g., X-33] have been barriers to actual progress. What do you think about the need for suborbital X-vehicles?

X-15 was useful suborbital vehicle, but they tend to be research vehicles that don’t tell much about operability. We don’t need X-vehicles for suborbital, most of the cutting-edge technology in hand. Orbital is a different story, but hopes and expects that operational suborbital vehicles will teach us a lot about how to get to orbit.

Q: From a media standpoint, what does it take to get the general public interested in space? One thing, or several things?

Specialty media that follows industry is not the source of the problem. It’s the general media. But doesn’t think it’s important to get the public interested in space again. When we’re doing useful things, then the public will get interested. Crucial area of ignorance is people in between those in the know and those who don’t care. Problem is that institutional investors want to know, and often think they know, but much of what they know is wrong. Not sure how to solve that problem.

Q: Speaking as a member, were you disappointed with the response to the Augustine Committee?

“Trying to jab more adrenalin into a dead horse is counterproductive.” By and large the federal government as a collective enterprise has chosen not to benefit from the advice of the Augustine Committee, just as it has with other aspects of public policy [such as the debt commission — rs]. As Keynes said, “In the long run, we’ll all be dead,” but the long run has come early. Hoped that they would provide the warning in time to make a difference, but they didn’t. Doesn’t expect NASA to be a growth industry, especially in space transportation.

Eight reasons it’s a disaster, and why Geithner should resign over it.