Why, you've missed the whole private space movement, previously known as alt.space . SpaceX isn't quite a member of that, but still an example of manned space program company - no manned launches yet, but really building up the capabilities. XCOR, Virgin Galactic, Masten Space, Armadillo Aerospace are other examples.
When you give a dollar to Russia, only a small percentage of that comes back.
When you give a dollar to Russia, only a small percentage of that comes back. When you give ten dollars to American economy, and even eight dollars come back, taxpayers are still at a disadvantage comparing to deal with Russia. Go figure?
The thing to bear in mind with this sort of calculation is the fact that when you pay overseas for such a thing then that's money straight out your economy
Does this argues for bringing all international trade - especially when a country can develop a similar product, only more expensive - to a screeching halt?
You kinda have to add perceived better safety record and subtract difference in cargo carrying capabilities, but yes, in a perfect market model price can be even higher.
Back to the point of the main article, I find it interesting that congress appears to be perfectly happy to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia for rides to orbit, but have to be dragged kicking a screaming to let NASA pay some American companies to develop the same capability, possibly for even cheaper (i.e. SpaceX's goal of 20-30 million per seat to the ISS)
OTOH, buying goods abroad where it's cheaper looks like having a lot of sense. And lately NASA is more open to paying to American companies to develop similar capabilities - may be not enough, though. They say Republican believe in market only on Earth, not in space... not that Democrats were a lot better lately.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
