You’d lose that bet. NASA won’t have the budget for such a trivial exercise.

Revisit section 9.3 of the CAIB and it pretty much sums up the mind set and options of that period recommended as presented to the Executive for consideration. Even then it was remarkably optimistic– and 2010 seemed far off at the time wuth talking of re-cert, capsules and space planes. But yes, as you say, they were people of that time– two wars ago. And as 2012 draws to a close, it reads remarkably dated already, doesn’t it, given the changing economics shifts in planning and immediate priorities of our times. . Yet as far as the lingering nag about a ‘defined goal’ goes the more things change, the more they stay the same. That singular refrain echoes through the pages of the report- anf across the decades from 1961 as well.

“Human spaceflight cannot succeed unless ISS succeeds,”

Except it has. For half a century. And will in years to come, long after what of the ISS survives reentry is at the bottom of the Pacific. It’s commerical HSF that’s DOA w/o ISS.

You do realize American Astronauts have been riding on the soyuz for over a decade right? Even when America does have domestic capability, I am willing to wager NASA will still be buying seats from them so they don’t sell them to tourists.

Just to be clear, the CAIB recommended a Shuttle replacement designed solely to provide access to LEO, saying that any more ambitious plan would be likely to fail. It further recommended that the Shuttle continue to fly until the replacement was operational and dod _not_ suggest it was to be cancelled when ISS assembly was complete. The CAIB were just people, like us, and not infallible, but Bush was not following their recommendations.

As for this proposed legislation, I see it as nothing more than a naked power grab by Congressional Republicans who want to punish the White House for pushing the cancellation of Constellation. I don’t think even a Romney Administration would accept such an abrogation of executive power and authority.

Well put. One of the most important roles of ISS is exactly that of a convenient and affordable destination in space. Destinations, as our culture defines them, are solid places where you can depart from your transit “ship”, plant your feet and have delimited space around you. To sit, to sleep, to eat, to live. Where there is a left, right, up, and down. Well, OK, for ISS, the up and down parts aren’t defined by gravity, but by the direction of your eyeballs.

I think we all understand that the future of at least human space flight depends on minimizing the cost to LEO, and that endeavor simply demands an achievable target. There are those who would say that if there were no ISS, we’d have loads of people romping on the Moon. But I suspect that isn’t the case. In fact, I suspect we wouldn’t have people anywhere in space, if that were the case.

I’m not sure I’d trust Congress, and a board selected by them, to see it that way. So say what you will about the rationale for ISS being technical and scientific smarts. But at root, it’s a lot more than that.

I have a lot of respect for Culbertson, but his notion that such a bill would be part of the debate in a presidential campaign is just crackers. Given that, it is a little peculiar why this bill is being submitted now. Perhaps because space advocates don’t trust either of the two prospective administrations to give a high priority to sustainability in space projects? This could be taken as just a legislative reminder that Congress is sensitive to NASA projects that don’t see their way to completion.

A lot can be done on ISS. Whether it is productive depends not on discovering some miracle drug but on reducing the cost of getting there until is is lower than the value of the work that can be done. In particular, it can serve as a destination for a new generation of reusable launch systems.

ISS can function indefinitely, and can be upgraded however we wish. If we can use it productively we can go further. If we fail with the ISS we will certainly fail on the moon or Mars, where costs will be far higher. It is not a footstep in space; it is a foothold.

I would like to see NASA and industry work together, but if the politicos want to legislate NASA into irrelevance at least there is hope elsewhere.