The article goes over a bunch of things, but IMO the most interesting paragraph is buried at the end: > "As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have mo

The article goes over a bunch of things, but IMO the most interesting paragraph is buried at the end: > "As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have more than a passing interest in what NASA does. And I have a little parochial interest, too, in what they do in Huntsville, Alabama," where Marshall is located, Sen. Shelby said. "Jody, you keep doing what you're doing. We'll keep funding you." Senate Appropriations Committee chairman is in NASA's corner, so that's something of a relief. Out of curiosity though, can someone walk me through why it would be a big deal if the worst case scenario were to happen and NASA's entire new generation of launch vehicles were scrapped? Wouldn't that just create a massive opportunity and subsequent land-grab in the commercial space to fill the vacuum? SpaceX has proven it can be done. Other commercial entities are nipping at SpaceX's heels. Especially if SpaceX starts successfully launching crewed missions this year, won't that prove that you can have a company that is significantly leaner and more efficient that can also produce vehicles containing tons of very explosive chemicals safe enough for humans to hitch a ride on?