How about doing some real research – and find out what these governments have actually SAID – not the words of a U.S. analyst about what she thinks they think.

I think the overall lesson learned by the Europeans, the Japanese and the Russians so far in this ISS programme is that you can only afford so much US friendship. They probably will be reluctant to get involved in any way that gets them more dependent on the US.

So you can see that these countries are just thrilled at the idea of running the space station after 2010. Especially France.

Uh, yes I have heard of it. I am the co-owner and editor of SpaceRef.com

I wouldn’t bet any money on the Japenese project ever flying, but if it does that would further increase margins.

Assuming that the Space Shuttle project manages a few more successful missions — and possibly even if it doesn’t — the Space Station is likely to survive logistically. In some ways, because so many nations are involved and have a stake, the Space Station is a pretty resiliant structure.

– Donald

There is a really useful web site called SpaceRef.com (maybe you’ve heard of it) that informs my conclusion that ATV is a difficult project. At the very least, difficult for the people doing it. Some relevant quotes:

March 22, 2002: This will be a unique opportunity to see the ATV in fully stacked configuration before its launch, currently scheduled for the autumn of 2004.

April 17, 2003: The first ATV is expected to be launched in September 2004.

March 30, 2004: Launch on the Ariane 5 from the European Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, is scheduled for 2005.

February 24, 2005: An identical operation will be performed for real one week before the first ATV launch on top of an Ariane 5 launcher, from Europe’s Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, in 2006.

That and the fact that the ATV doesn’t even carry astronauts.

This show is not going to save the space station.

It probably won’t happen — The US is unlikely to do that and they’d have to get used to doing it without so much US money — but in theory it could.

– Donald

The first ATV is being readied for launch. HTV is being built as well. Why would this be “difficult”? Both vehicles are going to be launched? You are just setting the goal posts as far a way as you can do so – semantically – and ignoring facts of the matter in the process.

Kuperberg: You aren’t getting around the fact that none of these other countries actually want the keys to the space station, and that Washington does not want to hand them over either.

Huh? I beg to differ. Have you read what the Russians have been saying recently? Have you been listening to Griffin’s lukewarm support for ISS as well?

I might agree with you if you had said “scientific national interest.” When you say “_any_ national interest,” once again, you are confusing the interests of scientists with the interests of all of us. There is significant overlap, but they are not synonymous. If my argument is correct, than the national interest (and the human interest, and ultimately the scientific interest) is best served by building early bases in space, whether they are useful for science or not. (As an aside, I conceded that for the sake of argument: I think you and other scientists are failing to consider the role of serendipity. Unless the entirety of human scientific experience has lead us astray, a scientific lab with scientists in a new physical environment is bound to discover something important and interesting, but unpredictable, just by being there.)

“But the space station is not made of stone,”

So? Completely misses the point. The Saqqara pyramid taught us how to build large structures. At the time, stone was necessary to do that. (The popular conception of the pyramids as simple structures is wrong: they are quite complex internally and learning to build them was not an easy exercise; at least one is known to have collapsed during construction. To build a pyramid, you have to avoid any small part of any stone supporting all the weight of the stones above — there can be no sharp points or corners in sole contact with another stone. In the real world, that is quite hard to achieve. The fact that all this was learned in a generation or two — we know that the first stone pyramids were built in rapid succession with a great deal of overlap over a few decades — further reinforces the model.) The Space Station is showing us how to build large structures in microgravity. While an HLLV can in theory let us delay that lesson, it is one that must be learned if we are to live in space.

What you are missing is that, yes, the pyramid at Saqqara was useless (to us, though maybe the Egyptians thought rather differently). But building it taught humanity skills that were essential in the millennia to follow. The Space Station may or may not prove to be useless, but building it or something like it was essential if we are to have a future in space.

“is not as large,”

So? Size isn’t everything, and, given what we’ve achieved before, it’s a pretty damned big step (many argue it was too big). The Space Station needs lots of supplies whatever size it is, and, in this case, that is the more important measure. Also, like any semi-permanent base, it can grow over time. Read those activity reports in Spaceflight — even now, it is being incrementally added to all the time.

“and won’t last as long.”

Want to bet? For reasons having to do with human nature, politics, and economics, bases on a new frontier often do not go away even when whatever the reason for their existence does. Look at San Francisco. Or, look at Mir, which lasted far longer than its design span, and would probably be there today were it not for American pressure to sink it. Look at how much effort is being put into keeping the Space Station occupied during the Shuttle stand-down. Sure, it makes no “sense,” but it is human nature. If we didn’t build a new foothold on a new frontier and fight hard to keep it there, we wouldn’t be the species that colonized the largest terrestrial world in Solar System in a few tens of thousands of years.

“Homo neanderthalensis did it too.”

Probably true, though that’s not my field. But, that does not change my basic point. Physical exploration appears to be something that human beings are uniquely good at.

“What Homo neanderthalensis did not do was adequately plan for the future. Homo sapiens still has a shot at it.”

In that case, we’d better make sure the SS does not become another Spruce Goose. We need to stop screwing around with clockwork spacecraft and start learning how to survive as a spacefaring species — and make sure the existing, already deployed Space Station becomes the first base involved in active trade on the new frontier.

– Donald