"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

Taking the first one: if we really want to put some U.S. employees in
space, and assuming no shuttle and no replacement NASA launcher, then
there are several options. One (which is rumored to be part of the
plan) is to purchase launches from other spacefaring nations. But
another is to purchase launches from any other company that can provide
them. Yes, I realize that there are no such companies currently, but if
the price were right, there could be in fairly short order. SeaLaunch,
for example, could probably be man-rated. SpaceX (which I expect will
be flying the Falcon I very soon) could man-rate its I or V booster,
again, if there were sufficient demand. Indeed, we might all be better
off if NASA simply supplied the market, and stayed out of the
engineering and operations details.

If the plan is to abandon LEO and fly to the moon or Mars, then there won't
be sufficient demand. I don't like the idea of NASA committing to buying a
bunch of LEO flights when NASA doesn't really need to do anything in LEO
right now. At some point, it may want to build a Martian ship in LEO, but
that may be 20 years away.

It might be cheaper to fly the shuttle unmanned -- to get supplies to ISS.
I like the idea of abandoning ISS in 3 years, but sending enough fuel up
that it can stay up there for at least 10 years. ISS may be in the wrong
orbit to be used as a stepping stone to anyplace.