Yes. Here-here! Totally agree.
I'll be more impressed with Blue Origin when they actually orbit something. Reusable sounding rockets or zero-gee flights for the ultra rich are all fine and dandy, if that's what you're in to, and if it drives progress toward something more substantial.
SpaceX is, IMHO, more impressive because they're actually doing stuff in space, to further spaceflight, at least by a more direct path. While suborbital hops for mega-rich tourists and suborbital reusable sounding rockets *might* lead something more substantial, I prefer the direct approach, like what SpaceX is doing.
I commented in the YORF thread on this topic that "this is the future boys-- NASA looks like it's standing still." I still believe that. NASA has spent the last 12 years fiddling with old shuttle parts trying to build some new sort of super-booster, which has required the redesign of nearly every part in play, and will use all those "reusable" (and thus very expensive) shuttle engines and SRB's in expendable mode, crashing them into the ocean to be destroyed and sink, or burn up on reentry. Even with the "benefit" of starting with all those "pre-existing" shuttle parts, it's taken over a decade and tens of billions of dollars to create this new "super-booster" and it will STILL take years longer before it's even ready for test flights. Then add of course the fact that this new super-rocket won't fly but once every 3-4 years AT MOST, and the fact that NO missions exist for it beyond a couple test flights, NO mission hardware has been developed for it to do anything beyond those test missions or some "stunt" missions like rendezvousing in cislunar space with some washing-machine size asteroid that MIGHT be dragged back to the vicinity of the Moon, IF NASA spends billions more developing a robotic mission to go out there and bring such an asteroid back. It's patently ridiculous. The mindset is insane. To top it off, if Falcon Heavy is successful, it will be just as capable as SLS Block 1 at a TINY FRACTION of the cost on a per-mission basis. SLS block 1 will possess NO capabilities that Falcon Heavy could NOT do, and in order for SLS to achieve the 130 metric ton payload capability spelled out in the authorization documents for SLS, it will require developing ALL NEW advanced SRB's or large F-1B powered kerosene boosters (which for political reasons are already out of the running-- ATK has too good of a lobbying system and too many insiders working within NASA to EVER allow anything BUT "advanced" disposable SRB's to be used). This will require BILLIONS more in development funding and years more time to achieve the SLS Block 2 performance. In addition, SLS will need an advanced upper ascent stage program (another billion dollar development) and an in-space propulsion stage as well (more money and development time). All this for NO specific mission plans beyond some vague talk of going to Mars "someday" 20 years from now.
I doubt SLS will survive to see more than a couple flights. NASA's own RAC-2 study, done in the wake of the cancellation of the Constellation program, showed that cost-wise and performance wise the BEST solution was to develop an all-new serially staged large booster, powered by a kerolox first stage, hydrogen second stage, with an in-space propulsion stage to finish the ascent to orbit and propel the payload to escape velocities for deep space missions. Sound familiar?? It should-- it would basically be a new Saturn V! Turns out Von Braun and company got it right 50 years ago, after all, but now we're too POLITICALLY invested to even recreate what they did that we threw away 40 years ago.
With the technology that SpaceX has already demonstrated (and Blue Origin as well), they've PROVEN that recovery of large liquid-propellant rocket stages IS possible with the technology we have. NASA COULD have developed something akin to a new Saturn V, with the first stages recovering at sea on huge barges ala Falcon 9 stage 1, for refurbishment and reuse. No stupid SRB's necessary, with all the drawbacks that SRB's have, like the huge perchlorate pollution problem at the Cape from 30 years of SRB flights on shuttles, the additional handling expense and difficulties that hampered operations in the VAB and elsewhere on the Cape for decades due to the use of large fully-fueled SRB's being handled and moved, and the difficulties of moving the extremely heavy SRB's mated to the vehicle stack, which unlike liquid propellant boosters MUST be moved fully fueled.
Instead we've gotten 12 years of development of some hybrid-shuttle-throwaway booster thing using redesigned shuttle parts that won't even fly a test flight for a couple years more at the earliest and won't fly a mission again after that for YEARS, and will be 2-3 more years after that before it flies again. Such a system is going to be RIDICULOUSLY expensive to maintain and operate, which is why it won't survive... unless of course Congress and NASA are content to spend most of NASA's budget NOT to fly, but just to maintain the capability...
Later! OL J R