It is just that this particular advertisement was particularly off topic.

I am sure.

“Could this be downside is we will be really good at LEO/GEO at expense of cis-lunar capabilities?”

GEO is cis-lunar while LEO is not even really space. Page 23, figure 10 tells the whole story. The infographic is the single best argument against NewSpace I have seen to date. The Moon is the place to go and we are not getting there from LEO with hobby rockets. There is no substitute for the Super Heavy Lift Vehicle with hydrogen upper stages. The ice on the Moon is the critical enabling resource and makes all things possible. Inferior lift vehicles and propellant depots are by comparison an impossible mess. Look at the energy required to travel between GEO (where the money is) and the surface of the Moon (where the resources are). Humans require massive shielding to survive for any length of time Beyond Low Earth Orbit. Lifting thousands of tons of tap water from the Earth’s gravity well is a non-starter. The NewSpace LEO business plan is a dead end.

The lines on the graph do not lie and cannot be misinterpreted.

http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbiac/Lunar_resources_review_preprint_accepted_manuscript.pdf

The same games now as then- nothing has changed. The engineers or managers signing off on a design do what they are told- instead of throwing the B.S. flag on details that make a good idea a loser. That is how you keep your job. I personally saw it in my branch of the service several times in less notable programs (rescue helicopter acquisitions).

Any one of several features of the Space Shuttle, had they not been decided on the basis of going cheap or military requirements, might have made the system a complete success.

The same games now as then.

http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense-satellite/

How kind. I think this kind of veiled insult is a bad thing. Of course you may actually be sincere, along with another commenters remarks about the “tenth man” -and some other personal asides. My long experience with NewSpace leads me to believe otherwise. None of us know what are the actual intentions of such comments.

“I’m thinking New Space has accomplished new developments for LEO access and putting sats into GEO.”

You are mistaken. They have accomplished new P.R. techniques and ways to influence peddle and scam tax dollars. They also have a legion of undercover groupies that try and get any word in edgewise to advertise for them. Pretty much a fifth column that always tries to spoil any conversation critical of SpaceX with favorable inferences.

“None of us know what are the actual plans of the NewSpace companies.”

It is obvious but of course it is much more entertaining to phrase mysterious.

“-can all this be scaled up with multiple launches i.e. routine like the airlines.”

No. If it could be it would have been done decades ago to bring the cost of satellite launches down. Physics and materials science have not changed. It’s the NewSpace scam.

“-can there be an easy way to put into orbit large structures or payload (i.e. fuel depots)?”

The Ehricke/von Braun wet workshop as applied to future iterations of the SLS. The hobby rocket is far too small to do this or go anywhere except the dead end of LEO.

“There is SLS but that vehicle will not be a frequent flyer.”

NewSpace dearly hopes so but there is no reason why it cannot fly with the same frequency as the shuttle for the same cost. We did it for 30 years and can keep on doing it. The SLS program has been hobbled by two-faced double agents within. All of “us” know this and there is nothing mysterious about it.

Really? “Clustered ion propulsion”? Falcon faux heavy comparable to the SLS you mean?

Not a chance- not even close.
So transparent.

“-the capital markets-”

“-the general population-”

Vlad is here to advertise his product for free Joe. It is not about space.

I see you post, and quite often, some very disparaging remarks of New Space folks. Not that is all bad, perhaps balance most of forum posts from many “All Hail Elon” folks. Come to think of it, you are the only one that writes critical remarks of the new space folks. I think it is a good thing Dr. Spudis has not banned you like all the other forums, gives rest of us a different perspective where nobody else dares to write. People like to post analogies, I wonder if back in the days when Howard Hughes was at his peak, everyone speaks of him highly, and maybe there were a few that were highly critical of him (i.e. none of his aircraft designs were made in quantities) but they were “run of of town” when publishing critical remarks about Hughes.

I have not research as much as you have, I probably would not say these companies go out of business as I’m not sure if Old Space would have created a capsule with a big door for passing cargo to ISS and also have it earth return capable. I’m thinking New Space has accomplished new developments for LEO access and putting sats into GEO. Could this be downside is we will be really good at LEO/GEO at expense of cis-lunar capabilities? I do agree talking about humans on Mars is totally unrealistic (that will always be 20 years away).

Such an analogy does not hold.