sighs

Because having a heavy lift platform predicated on existing technology is kinda nice if you want to replace or augment the ISS any time soon?

Or any number of other extra big-ass things you want to throw out of our gravity well without needing 40 flights to accomplish it? Helpful when you want to do things like build an orbiting space station, go back to the Moon eventually, or similar items that need a BFR.

Shuttle filled that role. Domestically, we don't have anything with that kind of payload capacity - or I'm in error, and flog me accordingly. :)

Unlike SpaceX, or Bigelow, or Sierra Nevada - as fucking stupid as gov't can be, it has the capability to not worry about profit margins, cash on hand, overhead, potential business, etc.

That said, how many commercial entities are really gonna need or want a BFR? I'm skeptical that it's the sort of thing that pays for itself.

Also, much as I love SpaceX and the other private enterprise pioneers: they are pioneers.

Couple launch failures on a prototype FH or BFR could be deadly, business-wise, on platforms with big sunk R&D, manufacturing, and infrastructure costs.

Hell, ULA is jumping into new territory. And they might well get out of the biz entirely unless forced to stay or nationalized.

If I'm NASA, you bet I'd avoid the eggs in one basket song and dance - with anyone.

None of these goals are mutually exclusive and unlike dealing with the military in some cases, NASA doesn't seem particularly at odds with SpaceX about anything - I'm sure there's technology and research being shared - and hell, you might see dual launches with the SLS-Evolved and BFR (managed from Volcano Lair 3.0) going up in 30 years from 3 or 4 different launchpads to git-r-done.

Me - I don't give a fuck if it's expensive. I'll go build barbecues and pay taxes and the geniuses from STEM educations can buy them and shoot things into space. Rising tide lifts all ships in that regard.