Space Program Priorities Revisited

[Tolls]

UR:
Correct, but you still have to get the fuel to the ISS...which leads us to possibly look at propulsion technology which is useable to take stuff from LEO to the higher orbits.

Timex:
I'm not sure the Mars prize is much cop, for pretty much the reasons you put forward. Now, the X prize is at least within the finances of a large number of groups.

[DanS]

But the X33 provided the goal to aim towards, which gave a framework for the development of these technologies. Without a core program (ie a better orbiter) how do you define success?

Just set up a benchmark along the lines of the Venturestar RLV. It's a fairly well developed hypothetical.

During which the capability was maintained over the 5-6 years. You shut down the shuttle now and there is nothing that you have that will get a person up there.

We do have the space plane possibility that could be the manned launcher in 6 or 7 years, if we pushed hard on the gas. This would cost much less to develop than a full-featured RLV. It would use similar materials to Venturestar and off-the-shelf propulsion.

Without it being the goal it will not happen by itself. Without work on long duration manned spaceflight annd its effects it will not happen.

It will happen sooner or later, as political will allows.

Overall, I might be able to accept the Station, serviced by anything other than the Shuttle. The Station will be the lesser albatross of the two once fully assembled.

[The Mad Monk]

Another nice thing about the Moon is that you don't need to resort to chemical rockets to lift material to orbit -- atomics all the way, baby!

[Az]

Moon bases

we need that Helium damnit!!