Red, good thing the US doesn’t also deploy strategic and offensive weapons abroad.

In other words, what happens if we only get the current status quo?

I wish I had a more solid lead, but I’ll concede that there aren’t any secure contracts, to my knowledge, for Bigelow. But there’s definitely interest in space tourism as evidenced by the waiting list for Space Adventures ISS flights. I think Bigelow is a more solid prospect than you suspect, though I can appreciate your suspicion. I’m often a bit pessimistic about it with how many times we’ve all be disappointed.

Aremis

I know the good scenrio, I’ve written about it. But does Bigelow actually have full fledge contracts already?

In other words, what happens if we only get the current status quo?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

“Weapons are carried in two internal bays, each capable of holding 20,000 kg (44,400 lb) of free-fall weapons, or a rotary launcher for nuclear missiles.”

I’ll assume that the ones in Venezuela aren’t carrying nukes. Even if that’s the case, it’s a provocative move, and isn’t going to be seen in a good light in Congress when considering the Monroe Doctrine, or when considering purchase of Soyuz flights.

– ISS may not retire in 2016, especially if COTS-D is there
– maybe not all 3 competitors would make it
– maybe the competitor flights would be for 2 or 3 crew members, increasing the number of flights (compared to Shuttle)
– if it turns out to be productive, ISS traffic needs per year might increase (eg: for commercial use of the ISS)

– space tourism (to ISS, or just to space, etc)
– new commercial or government human spaceflight roles for COTS-D vehicles (Hubble-style satellite servicing, fuel depot servicing, etc)

The Sentinel story is very interesting.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/09/nasa-russia-ess.html

“Continuing to fly the space shuttle past 2010 is not the answer to this situation,” the paper says. “The Soyuz option is simply the only sure solution … or else the U.S. has no choice but to de-crew all U.S. astronauts (and de-facto the Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts) from the International Space Station in 2011.”

and

“In interviews this week, members of the upcoming shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space telescope said it’s possible to fly a few more shuttle missions safely but not without slowing down development of the next space vehicle.

If America wants a new vehicle, said Commander Scott Altman, “you’re going to have to spend the money to make that happen, which I think is going to take you out of the shuttle business sooner, or else you just never get to the other side.”

All of this suggests that the rumors that Griffin was going to extend the Shuttle program are just that … rumors. These official NASA talking points totally undercut any argument for extending Shuttle (beyond another mission or two.)

FWIW,

– Al

The real potential lies in the customers that are looking at shaking out zero-G manufacturing technologies. I haven’t read into it enough to know what those projcest are or how real the possibilities are, but there are serious clients with serious money taking real looks at the possibilities.

Bigelow has a demonstrated success rate and continues to bask in the glory of two functional modules in orbit. And the next one, due in 2 1/2-3 years, will be man-rated and commercially available after they clear it.

Will the demand be enough to support three separate vehicles? It’s really hard to say at this point, but I think between NASA and private space there’s a good case for two.

Aremis