Comments on: Big (and I mean big) policy news http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/01/09/big-and-i-mean-big-policy-news/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=big-and-i-mean-big-policy-news Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Phil Smith http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/01/09/big-and-i-mean-big-policy-news/#comment-2 Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:40 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=6#comment-2 I’m guessing that ISS core complete will be the objective, since I understand a prototype OSP capsule will be introduced in 2007 or so, about the time the ISS core will be done based on the evolving Shuttle schedule. I think, however, that additional modules and such will be added as we go along, as it will be critical to use the ISS as a staging complex for the Moon and near Earth asteroids. I could imagine a dry dock of sorts in 10 years, were major assemblies would come together in orbit.

As far as missions now planned or proposed that will not support the human to Moon/Mars initiative (Webb telescope, Pluto, maybe Prometheus), I’m guessing these would be off the table, so to speak, and not part of the equation. If not, then I would imagine many will be cancelled, while others will simply be recast in a new role. For example, the MER missions, while scientific in nature, could easily be recast as prospecting missions. The end result is the same. For the James Webb telescope, this recasting effort would be hard to argue, so I think a few missions will be exceptions to the rule. Cosmology and astronomy as missions in their own right is justifiable and seems to be strongly supported by the public. One could argue that some of the time on these telescopes and such will contribute to the development of navigation charts (physical plots, gravity waves, potential visiting spots, etc.)

]]>