The Mir station was probably the last sensible project, which provided info on long-term (should I say longer-term) HSF. This might be useful for flight to, say, Mars.

Prominent Russian space figures like Leonov and Chertok say that HSF makes sense for flying to the Moon or Mars, but not for low-Earth orbit anymore. But I don’t see any Moon- or Mars-related efforts on Russian part.

P.S. BTW, as for the “Russian national character”. When the N1 Moon program failed, the Russians kept it classified for 20 years and the official stance was: “We never wanted to send people to the Moon, it is way too dangerous, only the Americans can be that foolish and irresponsible. We always wanted to sends robots, which we did with great success (Lunokhod missions).” Gee, what does this tell about the Russian national character? The Russian people was slaving away for some bigwigs to build and shoot rockets. The Russian people had no say at all in the Soviet space politics, although most of them did take pride in the achievements despite the hardships of everyday life.

I agree the X-37 represents the way forward, however it only a small part of the puzzle, the tip of the iceberg in a complete RLS, and even it could have benefited more from shuttle experience.

RGO: there were far far to many of them, they lacked almost all the wrong skills and what technology was there, was on a decades old vehicle. Almost none of the skills are useful…

How much of the Shuttle is 30 years old? Did you ever spend time asking the USA engineers and techs why the Shuttle was expensive to process, what they had done to improve it over the years, and how a new RLV could be made more efficient? They all had insights. In the rare cases when they were asked, they provided practical experience of what isn’t obvious to the engineer who has never done it before.

Unfortunately the USA personnel were commonly regarded as bolt-turners by those whose interaction with the hardware was limited to Powerpoint. Paperwork isn’t what keeps you alive at mach 25. Some of the lessons of Shuttle were incorporated in the X-37, but it tested only one small part of the puzzle, and even the entire Orbiter was only the tip of the iceberg. Obviously the next generation RLV should be made more efficient. But how? The most important insights many of the Shuttle workers could provide were ways to make their own jobs easier or unnecessary through more insight earlier in the design.

The rational approach would have been to apply this knowledge and experience to the initial design of the next generation of RLV. Instead almost all the lessons of thirty hard years have been thrown away, and will have to be relearned. The next generation always looks cheap and easy, just as the Shuttle looked cheap and easy 40 years ago. TPS, electrical, propulsion, almost every component except the basic structure has evolved, and eventually was maintained, at KSC. The skills were not those of the assembly line. Maintaining any aerospace vehicle requires craftsmanship, experience, judgment, and vigilance.

The Shuttles underwent frequent modifications, as did the even more complex maintenance and ground processing system. The workers at KSC were responsible for many of the improvements that took a nearly unworkable basic design to the point where (management to the contrary) it flew safely and efficiently as was possible within those constraints.

As long as the vehicle has structures, propulsion, GNC, and life support, as long as maintenance and operations are a far larger part of cost than the original design, as long as experience, craftsmanship, vigilance, and insight are needed to keep a reusable launch vehicle safe from T-0 to wheel stop, the skills of the USA technicians and engineers so recently dispersed from KSC will be the very skills we need.

“No, I mean tools. As in the ever-depreciating capital that makes a plant, assembly area and launch facility more than just real-estate.”

In the industries I’ve worked in fixtures are used to hold a part or assembly while it is being worked on, and tools are used to perform the work, so essentially we’re both talking the same category.

“Aerospace tool work sucks, sucks hard, and does terrible things to labor portability across the industry.”

If you mean it’s expensive, then sure, yes, it can be, depending on what it is. As to the rest of your point, what “terrible things to labor portability across the industry”? Are these wistful feelings, or do you have some examples you’d like to share?

…are not a problem either, even if what you really mean is fixtures.

No, I mean tools. As in the ever-depreciating capital that makes a plant, assembly area and launch facility more than just real-estate. Aerospace tool work sucks, sucks hard, and does terrible things to labor portability across the industry.

“If space tourism takes off, it will be a Cheez Whiz.”

concur completely …I think space tourism is in at least the short term…next 10-20 years something that is nothing RGO

“Tools, on the other hand…”

…are not a problem either, even if what you really mean is fixtures.

Facilities could be expensive, but the trend is to not need expensive buildings like the VAB or the Shuttle complex 39 A & B.

“If it’s $6 million a seat, as new commercial is proposing…”

Maybe you’re just using $6M/seat as an example, but none of the commercial crew participants has suggested a price of $6M/seat.

SpaceX has talked about $20M/seat, but only with a full capsule, so call it $140M/flight for up to seven people. Boeing has only said they will be competitive with Soyuz, which in 2015 will be around $60M/seat.

I think one of the ways NASA will purchase crew transport will be by the flight, and then they will decide how many extra people (if any) they want to send up. Once there is a 7-person capsule at the ISS that needs rotation, NASA can send up extra personnel, contractor employees, politicians or whoever for short duration stays. I think this will end being very popular with not only NASA and it’s contractors, but the other ISS partners too.

Unfortunately NASA has just finished firing everyone in the world with hands-on experience with reusable launch vehicles.”

there were far far to many of them, they lacked almost all the wrong skills and what technology was there, was on a decades old vehicle. Almost none of the skills are useful…

X-37 has far more relevance to a reuseable vehicle. RGO

Besides the good engineers are still working and available when needed.

Tools, on the other hand…