“Building in safety from the ground up.”
Note the theme that safety is the highest priority, and no discussion of how much this is all costing, or how much it’s delaying ending our dependence on Russia (which is part of the cost) in addition to delaying an increase in ISS crew size (which is also part of the cost).
How much is it costing?
When I pointed out the “one thousand separate requirements” CCDev was imposing on SpaceX, you pooh-poohed my concern, saying I had no evidence those 1000 requirements would increase costs. Sounds like you found some evidence after all.
As for US dependence on Russia, if that were a concern, NASA should be figuring out how to transfer its research programs to a Bigelow space station as soon as possible, instead of extending US-Russian cooperation on ISS indefinitely. But that doesn’t seem to be something anyone in DC cares about.
When I pointed out the “one thousand separate requirements” CCDev was imposing on SpaceX, you pooh-poohed my concern, saying I had no evidence those 1000 requirements would increase costs. Sounds like you found some evidence after all.
I have never said that NASA wouldn’t impose requirements on Commercial Crew that would increase cost.
In that case, if CCDev is increasing costs, wouldn’t it make sense to consider alternative policy approaches?
It’s not increasing costs relative to what Congress would actually like to do. It is decreasing them.
I thought this was what Congress decided to do.
Leaving that aside, you ducked the question. I did not ask about what you think Congress would like to do. The universe is not limited to only two possibilities.
instead of extending US-Russian cooperation on ISS indefinitely
Indefinitely is the key word there. The future is very uncertain. IIRC, all of the groups involved have expressed an interest in moving away from the ISS.
So, they’ve expressed a vague interest in allowing a private company like Bigelow to replace Russia — sometime in the undefined distant future? I don’t think statements like that will have Putin shaking in his boots.
Especially when you have Jim Muncy calling for NASA to not only extend its commitment to ISS but expand the station to allow 1000 people to live and work in space. (By the time NASA succeeds in doing that, Putin’s great-great-great grandchildren will be ruling Russia.)
It’s as if Reagan had said, “Mr. Gorbachev, maybe you should think about doing some feasibility studies of possible modifications to this wall.”
Maybe some ISS partners have been musing about Bigelow but I think they have mostly been speaking of moving on from ISS in the direction of some other multinational government co-op.
Who knows? There are always PR fluff stories about ambitious powerpoints.
The other international partners aren’t pushing to continue ISS. NASA didn’t even consult them before announcing the life extension. It’s not France or Italy saying that NASA should expand the ISS; it’s PoliSpace and SFF.
But even if it were the international partners, so what? If supporting Putin’s space program undermines our national security, should we continue that support just to make some foreign nation happy?
Its there, what do you want to do with it? IMO, most people will want to see it used for a while before we dump it. Its not like there is something physically wrong with it.
Then what comes next? Its still going to be some sort of public private partnership and we are going to invite other countries to participate. Other countries might invite us to participate.
Maybe if the ISS was sold to a private party, its utility could be maintained but if not, would we have another gap but this time with no reason to send people into space? What would that mean for commercial crew and cargo partners?
When the dust settles, we may find NASA’s next destination not being an asteroid, the Moon, or Mars but rather LEO, by making sure a privately controlled station exists before moving on. Or maybe Bigelow, or someone else, will put something up without our government having to do anything but what are the chances the government won’t want to have its fingers in there somewhere?
Sometimes I think Blue Origin is our only hope… and that thought saddens me even more than when I thought SpaceX was our only hope.
Fly. That’s all they have to do. We’ll pay, if you fly.
If one company is your only hope, there is no hope.
What we need is *competion*, which requires multiple competitors.
.. and a freed market. So long as governments continue to prop up launch you’ll see a focus on government launch.