Because wasted money isn’t ‘protected’ by wasting more money. You’re deep in the clutches of the fallacy of sunk costs. Money that has been spent is gone, and actions now depend on the cost/benefit of the additional spending.

By this measure, the ISS is a nearly useless albatross. It can do nothing that comes anywhere close to justifying the cost of continuing to operate it.

the solar arrays.. well there are better solar arrays out there then what is currently used on the ISS. its not as effcient per sqcm, so they will need to be bigger, but they can be rolled up and they can still work even after they’ve been ounctured by micro meteorites. I forget the guys name who invented them. Old guy he and his wife started a company together in the 60’s. See him alot on ascience programs dealing with alternative enrgy. There is also a bonus which isn’t a bonus in space but worth mentioning.. they have the same output when its cloudy as it does when its sunny.

On the trusses, there are other trusses that can collapse in a matter that they can fit in a K-1, or a Falcon (which is supposed to test launch today)

both of these would need development work for be usuable for the ISS but the big boys have a choice to make. Adapt, Politically sabatoage other peoples efforts, or get off the playing field.

Best way for the big boys to adapt.. is to make a heavy luanch capibility that is designed to have the same cargo room as the shuttle. I see Shuttle-Z as still an option, though i forget the cost per pound on that. But it would be the easeiest way for Boeing/Lockheed to make a heavy launch vehical.

Its the other way around, if it wasn’t for the space station, the shuttle would not be flying.

In a way, that is the point. If it weren’t for Mir and the Space Station, Russia almost certainly would not have a space program today. Infrastructure like the Space Station “pulls” space transportation. Build a station in space (by which I mean any base anywhere) and keep it operational, and the transportation will take care of itself.

What I think we’ve been doing wrong all these years is trying to build the transportation before the destination, rather than the other way around.

— Donald

Once built why would you need the shuttle for major repairs? Asuuming Kistler and t/Space succeed, thhe only thing the combination of the ISS and the rest can’t do is add new modules just like the old ones. The US modules we have now was designed to fit in the shuttle. (To justify the shuttle’s exsistance)

We can design new modules to fit on what ever we have available. Or use two kistler launches, one to lauch a nautilus the second the equipment that goes into the module. Use the robitic arm to manver the module into place.

the only “need” i see for the shuttle after the ISS is finished (assuming kistler and t/space, or some other ASP contender, succedes) is a political one.

There are multiple methods of defurring a domesticated feline. If we didn’t insist the shuttle do it all in the 70’s, it would be cheaper to do things today.

The Shuttle has been “retired” for two years and the station isn’t dead.

If all the US can do is resupply missions and these are to be only slightly of more in volume than a progress, soyuz combination then the station is in trouble before it is finished.

Any real repairs are going to need shuttle’s lift capacity and bulk size cargo capability for as long as we are willing to protect the investment that we have made. What are the plans to replace the shuttle in this area is of great concern it the shuttle is 100% retired upon completion?

Science questions that utilize the stations capability for a reason yes but science to be preformed only for the sake of doing something with the equipment is a poor waste of time.

We should have moved on other things beyound that by this time. Such as recycling rocket parts into say a lunar cycler, or building a Lunar or mars landers from the same parts and more.

How about melting down the metals from the rockets and making items of need such as micrometeor shields, salvage yard space port docking garage and more.

These are not futuristic uses for the station needing science or technology for we have them. We only need to make the next step.

The other stuff will come once the bulk cargo is proven. If the cargo carrier is small enough, it should be easily adapted to drop bulk goods on the moon (semi-hard landing?).

Let’s do it quick, dirty, and fast; we can optimize it once it’s done.

— Donald

As for your fort example above, I wonder if they could have done it cheaper then they did or like the space station the method they established it was as political as building the Station was. (Designing it around the shuttle to justify the shuttles exsistance)

The space station should never be completely abandoned or worse deorbited and forgoten like Mir. It’s the perfect example of how not to do it next time. While in 20 years a national Labratory is a bit much. But a National Monument on the other hand..