So what? Your assertion was that O’Keefe feared China’s human space flight program. Just because one, lousy, network news report doesn’t reference any cooperative efforts between two national space programs, doesn’t mean that the leaders of those space programs fear each other. That’s goofy logic. I don’t fear my neighbor because we’ve never worked on anything together. Silly and childish.

Moreover, I provided you with two references to O’Keefe meeting with and congratulating China’s space leaders. Here’s another, a CNSA report, repeatedly stating that various cooperative efforts were on the table during O’Keefe’s meeting with then-CNSA head Sun:

http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n620682/n639462/54344.html

Try reading and comprehending more than one source instead of vainly clinging to one lousy opinion in one sparse, 30-second network news report.

Here’s why. It isn’t to their benefit. We’re talking $3B/yr. Hard to imagine any consortium of aerospace companies getting that much benefit out of ISS. If the federal government washes it’s hands of human spaceflight, industry will salute and line up behind them. Because, if the federal government isn’t interested in human spaceflight, ISS suddenly becomes a huge waste for everyone.

By the way, this issue has hardly devolved into a name-calling personal one. There are strong arguments for both keeping and not keeping ISS. It’s a respectable policy debate that is going on. Such policy debates are actually extremely productive, because they flesh out the issue in much greater detail. But no, you’re not going to see a “resolution” here.

If it were only a science project, it’s worth might be arguable. But it isn’t. The science community certainly wouldn’t identify it as that. To many, it’s a geopolitical tool. The worth of that is hard to gauge. More accurately, I think, it’s a space-systems test bed. Now, what’s been a little awkward about that is that it’s never really been that clear what it’s a test bed FOR. But as we do concept engineering for notional BEO missions of any kind, what we’ve learned on the ISS, for ECLSS, AR&D, large power systems, space systems robotics, space materiel degradation, and human factors in zero-g, has been priceless. I can say with great certainty that it is hard to conceive of any credible Mars mission being designed without being informed by what we’ve learned on ISS. Calling the expertise we’ve gained on ISS “utterly trivial” is just reflexive badmouthing. We understand that you’d rather the ISS would just go away, but denying its accomplishments is kind of inane.

In fact, if you go back and look at Mars exploration concepts before ISS, they were really pretty laughable. Ya think a beefed-up Apollo capsule would have done the job?

That’s a simplistic definition of economic value. The Miley Cyrus industry adds to the GDP, but I don’t see the taxpayer out to underwrite her. OK, let’s say the entertainment industry as a whole. Science, technology, and engineering are pursuits that offer real value to the nation. But shooting humans up on rockets frankly does not.

Besides, we were talking about LEADERSHIP in human space flight, not encouragement of it (as in, a wink and a tax loophole).

To the extent that the private sector has the capability to do human spaceflight, which it will in a couple of years, it’s time for the federal government to relinquish leadership in it, except to the extent that it serves a national defense need. The private sector is in the best position to establish real economic value.

All spending is not created equal. Public and private serve different functions.

It depends what you think the risks are. If the risks are gravity and dust, then the Moon is a good place. Though we know quite a bit about gravity and dust. If the risk is the vacuum of space, the ISS is a fine place to do the rehearsal. I think the main risk is the latter.

As to keeping astronauts safe from high radiation levels, the Moon is a pretty silly place to do it, because half of the sky is blocked. If we want to learn about radiation shielding, dropping down into the lunar gravity well and landing on a surface where thermal control and power is especially challenging is just dumb. But the idea of a cis-lunar habitat, say, at a Lagrange point, or in lunar orbit, makes some sense, for that reason.

“I mean, just how close to the Earth could we possibly put astronauts, and still claim to have put them “in space”??!”

Well, if “space” is a vacuum, it’s pretty handy that we don’t have to go all that far to get to it. But maybe the word “space” has some meaning for you beyond the tasks we’re talking about? No, I don’t see any of what your problem is. Is “space” to you about far away-ness? Perhaps we need to send astronauts to a place where the Earth looks small. We need to test the psychological effects of a small-looking Earth, no? Gosh, they might just go nuts!

“Low Earth Orbit is, by contrast, way too easy & unchallenging … just the mere, easy way out! ”

Wow. I know a lot of space agencies and industries that would argue with you about that. You call ISS “easy”? I have to ask what experience you bring to bear that allows you to make that statement. I mean, I can say that anything, for which I have no experience to bring to bear, is easy. What’s easy is saying that.

“Astronauts don’t have to ever go anywhere, under this LEO-only paradigm.”

James Cameron went down to the bottom of the Marianas trench last year. My goodness, that was only seven miles under the surface. Hah! He didn’t hardly go anywhere, did he? That was probably really “easy” too, no? No, I don’t bring a lot of experience to bear on deep ocean dives, but hey, that won’t stop me from saying it.

Pathetic. To the extent that you’re desperately afraid of China’s intentions to dominate the Moon, that could be a more sensible reason for leaving LEO.

“But if, on the other hand, China does merely a limited interlude in LEO—–if it builds a lesser-scale, less-extravagant space station…”

Oh, if ONLY the Chinese would tell us what they are doing, wouldn’t that help our angst!!!

You are funny Chris. The Chinese have told us what they are doing. Small LEO stations, and robotic exploration of the Moon. Oh, and they are looking at others things too, but only looking for now, no commitments.

“Duplicating America’s LEO-only approach: Copying the ISS, and getting trapped in LEO…”

If you don’t want to acknowledge that we don’t yet know how to keep humans alive for long periods of time in space, then I feel sorry for you. You apparently are for RISK, and not only that but the waste that comes from unnecessary risk, both in lives and money. To say I disagree would be an understatement.

“THAT prospect virtually guarantees that NEITHER nation will leave Low Earth Orbit, by 2030!!”

I know you don’t understand why, but the vast number of space advocates do want humans to reach far out into space, to expand humanity well beyond Earth. But you need more than an unaffordable HLV, you need to spend a lot of time and money developing the technology and techniques that humanity needs to not only stay alive beyond Earth, but THRIVE.

And we’re not there yet. If we tried today, with NASA’s empty exploration cupboard, it would be a temporary effort that wastes vast sums of money. That would be stupid.

Don’t be stupid. There are smarter ways, but they take time. So be smart.