[privong]

> It is absolutely disgusting to suggest that, after we gutted NASA in order to make opportunities for private enterprise, we should just stop sending stuff to space altogether.

I do not think that was the point of the article. Some things do not absolutely need to be beyond the atmosphere, they only need to be up high. In the past, the technology to keep things at what might be termed "moderate" altitudes has not been available, so we pushed things above the atmosphere. But when you have technology to do the job better, it does not make sense to continue sending things up to space simply because that is what has been done in the past.

Not to mention, retrievable technology means it can be upgraded, rather than junked (as many satellites are). So this could very well reduce space junk (or at least reduce its rate of increase) and result in more rapid technology development.

There are certainly there are things which will still be easier or better served by the use of satellites up, and so that technology will continue to be developed.

[ericd]

He may have a point - it's locally optimal to decrease the cost of applications, but it may be globally optimal to pay more for those applications to increase space launch volume and decrease the marginal cost of a launch.