And since the aging U.S. space shuttle fleet is due to be decommissioned why not use it in a clean-up effort of all the space “junk” in low-earth orbit?

I would agree with you if you were talking about copper mining and you were advocating using a Terex TR100. You do not need this large and specialized of launch vehicle to assemble in orbit, reusable space vehicles or to launch fuel into LEO.

Once there is a commercial fuel station, there will multiple sellers at multiple prices for fuel launches. The fuel station will buy fuel from different sellers at different prices and will sell fuel to NASA at the combined average cost plus profit margin.

That would be a guess that could only be based on a profound ignorance of the economics of launch.

If so, why doesn’t ATK enter it in the Commercial Crew competition and in the next round of CRS? Or for that matter, why don’t they do a startup and launch satellites with them? Money talks, BS walks.

this is the key to national space infrastructure creation.

Everyone of those changes that is “in the national interest” on commercial boosters…also makes them more competitive in the commercial launch industry.

This cannot be said for Ares or DIRECT.

Robert G. Oler

“the prime realestate in spaceflight is GEO..with the second place finish to sun synch polar. there is little doubt in my mind that we are going to see in the next 10 years or less the first human serviced GEO platform and the first human serviced sun synch platform.”

I have argued for this before with a LEO2GEO vehicle. The ownership has already been decided for GEO and this is why commercial is there, in my opinion, and not on other celestral bodies yet. ..

you make a good point that should be repeated frequently…

Where the next big space rush is going to come, and the Chinese I think are aiming their program for this (although I have no solid proof but the “pieces” fit this far more then they do a lunar rush)…is going to be to improve space assets both commercial and national in GEO.

GEO Assets and their possible negation are the game changers in national space efforts. The first country that gets 24/7 1 meter resolution “anywhere” on the planet has amazing capabilities…the first country that develops a “stealth” satellite which can negate GEO assets and make it look like space debris…is a game changer.

Likewise the ability for very high speed very tightly focused data transmission (ie big antennas) is going to change commercial ops.

As for a 10 year timetable…I learned a long time ago that in a dynamic system those were just wishful thinking (ie I dont disagree with you!)

Robert G. Oler

I stand by John Shannon’s statement that we could be flying in 2012, yes that’s two years from now for the math impaired, on new tanks… those you quote foolishly”

Shannon and “those [I] quote foolishly” (including Shannon, Radzanowksi, and Garver) are all saying the same thing with regard to the inevitability of a two- to three-year gap on Shuttle. If you agree with Shannon, as you just said you did, then you agree with Radzanowksi and Garver.

“At which point Amercians will be stuck on Earth, unless we can thumb a ride from Russia, where fools apparently abound.”

Given what the Russians have been able to maintain since the end of the Cold War for a fraction of the NASA human space flight budget, I’d argue that there’s very few fools over there.

FWIW…

Major Tom,

I stand by John Shannon’s statement that we could be flying in 2012, yes that’s two years from now for the math impaired, on new tanks…

no you stand by your interpretation of what Shannon said.

“John is a very straight shooter, he has to be, is organization actually puts Humans into Space and Space doesn’t suffer fools gladly. That is until those you quote foolishly help to end that activity. At which point Amercians will be stuck on Earth, unless we can thumb a ride from Russia, where fools apparently abound.”

I’ll just snicker at the first part of the statement. No, I guess I wont pass on it “is organization actually puts…” did you you mean “his” organization…doesnt suffer fools gladly”. This would be the same organization (although not with Shannon at its head) that lost Columbia (at least in this century)…

anyway “thumb a ride from Russia”. do you people at DIRECT just make this stuff up or what?

The use of the Soyuz as the CRV would remain even if we chose the DIRECT path…so The Russians would be in the critical path anyway (the entire project is designed for interdependence…there is a reason for that learn it and you learn a lot) and at the rate of shuttle launches of “two a year” the crew changeouts would still occur a LOT on Soyuz.

When you are left with rhetoric you at least ought to try and have some good stuff. The stuff you are using is so lame it can be knocked down by The Three SToges

Robert G. Oler