I’m not sure this is necessary. First, the Station is clearly capable of surviving and being a market in its current configuration. Any additional construction is a bonus — albeit an important one since it increases the size of the potential launch market.

Second, if and when the Station is complete, any further evolution can easily use newly-designed components launched on the vehicles of the day. The only absolutely critical heavy elements that I am aware of are the gyroscopes, but I can also think of some workarounds (which would be expensive, but also create a bigger launch market). Maybe second generation gyroscopes could be lighter?

In any case, I don’t think pure maintenance of the Space Station requires the Shuttle or anything like it.

— Donald

I must confess to being one of those pro-space ISS critics; I also must confess that Donald’s article(s) on the space station are starting mellow my take on the thing. I like the idea that NASA is strolling toward the idea of allowing the private sector to resupply the station, thus providing at least one immediate market for all of the aspiring private launch service companies out there.

Reagan was originally sold on the station (remember Space Station “Freedom?”) as a place for developing commerce and manufacturing in orbit. It would be built in ten years–by 1994–and cost $8 billion. That didn’t happen. However, if the station was doing that, other things could follow.

Are any of the current private launchers on the drawing board big enough to handle heavy-lift work like bringing up ISS parts? I know X-33 was designed to (theoretically) do that; the full-size Delta Clipper might have done so as well. In any case, the first step is to get the private sector to start handling resupply missions, and then–God and the Congress willing–take over launching and completing the remaining pieces of the station. That would allow NASA to decommission the Shuttle and focus on completing ISS components, developing CEV, and maintaining its science programs.

What the heck, dream big!

/b

I think their primary point is “Did it really have to cost $100B and take over 30 years to complete this project”?

The answer, of course, is “No, it did not.”

– Al

A permanent presence on the moon, and the attendent experience surviving on the type of body that dominates the inner Solar System, will be another step down this path.

— Donald

I agree with that point. In that manner, NASA has already had to make significant adjustments in its thinking betweeen 1-2 week space shuttle trips and 3-6 month space station visits. They are much different operationally, in many ways.

Deep space expeditions will take it another step along that path.

– Al

Granted, Al. I wrote that late at night as I was racing out of the office and I accept that it may be a little too absolute. However, I stand by its basic theme. Deep space travel, especially the initial expeditions, will be very, very different from getting into LEO, and there are few if any comparable analogues in recent human history. The crew of a Navy ship will have a far greater understanding of the challenges involved in getting to Mars than will any airman. Likewise, I suspect, the supporting engineers.

— Donald

Donald,

I don’t disagree with your analogy of the deep sea (in fact, Mark Gittleman, VP of Oceaneering Space Systems has a thoughtful letter to editor in Space News this week on the subject of humans or robots), but your statement “completely irrelevant” is a pretty definitive statement. You are usually more careful than that.

Instead of “x-planes”, I suggest use of the word x-vehicles. The distinction here is a spacecraft/vehicle whose primary (if not sole) purpose is to test and demonstrate new technologies by actual flight test. The operational purpose is secondary at best (some suggest that any operational objectives can be dangerous.)

In fact, this already happens for in-space technology beyond LEO. Examples: Orbital Express, Deep Space 1, Clementine, XSS-11, XSS-12, Space Technology 5, 6, 7 and 8, Mercury and Gemini (they were x-vehicles that demonstrated techologies and operations leading to the Apollo capsule/systems), Discoverer II (SBR demo cancelled by Congress), Midcourse Space Experiment, Mighty Sat 1/2, etc. There are many others.

I suggest that x-vehicles (broadly defined), to prove & demonstrate new technologies beyond LEO, will play an important role in exploring (and settling) the rest of the Solar System.

Assuming a broad definition, you can even think of some of NASA’s recently announced prizes as meeting this definition.

– Al

PS – On the subject of Mercury and Gemini as x-vehicles, leading to Apollo, it is interesting to note that Apollo was a “spiral development” program. But that is a dirty word this days on the 9th floor of NASA HQ.

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm

Cheers,

/b

— Donald