Rand Simberg is right

When he says that the heavy lifter without a mission is a solution looking for a problem.  Here is a problem to be solved:  how to establish a permanent presence in space while at the same time enabling economic development of space.

But there are many lifters available and that seems to be one of the problems.  What to do with all these?  I think this problem is big enough for all of these to have something to do in order to solve the problem mentioned above.

What if nobody thinks of this as a problem though?  What if the question is this "Who cares about being in space?"  If all we are talking about is competition for a few satellite launches, then certainly, we don't need all these rocket systems.

It seems to me that the above problem is the one that occupies the minds of most people in this business.  It's a competition for limited demand.  In cases such as that, you need to eliminate the competition so that you can survive.  Anyone else that's around is taking business from you and you just can't have that.

So, the problem could be restated.  Create new missions so that there are enough to go around.  There are plenty of things to do in space.  Plenty for everybody.  It just takes some people to realize that and to start looking for ways to get it done.

I think one mission is to exploit space for profit.  Impossible you say?  Why not look into that as a problem to be solved?  Why not see if it can be done?  If it can't, then why are there in the first place?

Update:

I just went back and checked the comments.  If they can do what they claim, then you don't need the shuttle system after all.   I don't have a dog in this hunt.  It's no skin off my back.  Whatever works best, I say.  If the shuttle system is water under the bridge, then it is what it is.  Whew!  More cliches than you can shake a stick at!