Jim, you forget that the Russians have done unmanned docking of space station modules. But let’s accept that human pilots are advantageous, if not strictly required — that advantage is not unique to the Shuttle. If NASA shut down the Shuttle, they could put part of the savings into incentives for private industry to develop a piloted space tug.

> We should fly the Shuttle to finish ISS. As quickly as possible.

Why? The current NASA budget plan shows no funding for ISS operations after 2015. Do you think NASA should finish it just so they can shut it down? If not, what do you think NASA should do with it? (More importantly, what do you think NASA *will* do with it?)

“Meeting international obligations” is not sufficient justification. Even NASA has acknowledged that paying off the international partners would cost far less than finishing ISS.

Recall the European company — an American company before ITAR — now called Cone Express. Launch one of the Station modules or trusses and pay them to adapt their tug designed to support comsats past their shelf lives to maneuver the module within reach of the arm. Or, pay the Russians to dock a Progress or (preferably) a Soyuz with extra tanks, and maneuver the module within reach of the arm. Or, develop something from scratch. We need a space tug; this may be an appropriate time to develop it.

The point is, $5 billion over five years should pay for one hell of a lot of innovation. Right now, it certainly isn’t getting the Space Station completed. If there are any signficant problems with the May launch, or if it gets delayed significantly beyond that date, this would be politically opportune time for for a new strategy.

— Donald

Great discussion-starter, as usual.

Those who would use EELV or HLLV to launch Station modules forget one little detail. It’s called rendezvous and docking. You can’t just throw 20-ton objects towards the ISS. SOmethign has to take it the last mile. The Shuttle does this itself, with a human pilot. There is no magical robotic space tug that can move Kibo or Columbus or truss elements around.

We should fly the Shuttle to finish ISS. As quickly as possible. Then put the orbiters in a museum.

– Jim

I fully agree with your points here. It has already helped us. If you believe that the existance of a space station is essential to getting commercial space transportation on a stable footing — as I do — than recall that the only reason we still have a space station is foreign policy.

— Donald

Yes, one of the reasons that Apollo was such a disaster for our prospects for opening up space. It established a false paradigm in the minds of the American public of how space programs work, and how space is properly developed.

Yes, the Shuttle should be ended sooner. Yes, it is a HUGE waste of money if you judge it based on core space policy objectives. But ending of the Shuttle is not going to happen, short of another catastrophe.

Foreign policy ALWAYS trumps space policy. Because of this, what we call our nation’s “space policy” is an really an extension of foreign policy.

Why did we do Apollo?

Why did we bring the Russians into the Space Station to create ISS? Why do we have an ISS program? (Remember, it was one vote from cancellation before they were brought in.)

Why do we have ITAR?

Why do we have ISNA?

It is clear that the only thing saving the Shuttle is our commitments to our foreign partners. End of discussion.

Since the dominance of foreign policy over space policy is a reality, I suggest that we spend more time thinking about how to turn foreign policy objectives into an asset, rather than whining about things we can’t change.

– Nemo2

PS — BTW, this is from somebody who thinks that starting the Shuttle was one of the worst real SPACE policy decisions ever made. It was not driven by foreign policy. The government decided it wanted to design, build and operate a truck, and promised to fly 50 or more times per year, and to operate it at very low cost. And the American people in the 1970s did not say a darned thing about it. Socialism at its finest.

Prepare for greatness NASA!

I think one more shuttle accident will create the impression in Congress that the people working for NASA are incompetent. The people working at NASA today aren’t the ones who put man on the moon; they’re just sitting at their desks.

Although support for the manned program may have risen after shuttle accidents twice before, I’d say that NASA has pretty much used up its Mulligans.

There’s this little thing you’re forgetting called “station assembly”…