No ESAS-2 Needed

Something for everybody and still going nowhere...boy, that's change I can believe in...phfffft!!

Color me skeptical about an ESAS-2 or any other new long-term plan that the government develops for NASA. That's because they cannot seem to stick to any plan and see it to fruition.

Quite frankly, NASA's "planning" sounds exactly like the old Soviet "Five Year Plans." They had 13 five-year plans and very few were ever completed. In fact, GOSPLAN would change their plan mid-way and embark on a new Five Year Plan, which would then be changed to another Five Year Plan. Sound familiar?

Doesn't the phrase 'gain the Solar System' ring hollow when cancelling the one realistic shot we had to get beyond LEO?

Is there a schedule for when that might happen or could this be, just perhaps, a vague promise for the future (translation: never to happen) in an attempt to sweeten the bad news?

Plans come and go, civil service jobs are forever, i.e. NASA has become mainly a welfare for engineers and scientists

Just saying we're going to privatize NASA means little to nothing without a goal, like going to the moon and staying there (colonizing/commercializing)! And I haven't hear of any goals? Just that NASA will be buying tickets from SpaceX or Orbital.

I don't care what you think, the new policy will lay in place a truly new paradigm in space exploration. The old thinking of millennial frog jumps from Earth to Moon to Mars will hopefully become history. It's going to be hard for the older generations to accept, but their days are numbered. The future belongs to the young and those willing to embrace new ideas and approaches.

To SC220:
You're kidding right? How naive can you be?

Depending on the timeline - I'm open to it...imagine manned missions to asteroids - or astronauts walking on the surface of a comet (Armageddon-style).
That could be pretty cool. Not as cool as walking on Mars but at least it would be something *new*. That's what exploration is all about. I have to admit that going back to the Moon was a hard sell to 'Joe Sixpax' anyway ("been there - done that"). This could be our chance to 'leapfrog' - I just wish they had done this six years ago.

Embracing an idea is easy, but having enough attention span to follow through isn't. Much of this 'future generation', alas, will switch to a non-STEM career as soon as an instructor dares scribble F=m*a on the white board or they can't find an answer in wikipedia.

Why bother opening a textbook to learn orbital mechanics when it's so much easier to say 'Engage!' and leap into warp speed?

Like the failed Massachusetts election, the Obama administration has completely misread the reaction to his unrealistic goals for the commercial space program. They will continue to make the same mistakes until they are out of office.

Right now the spaceX rocket is nothing short of a death trap for any manned space flight. Can you imagine getting on an airplane with only a 40% success rate? At least Ares has test flown and passes all safety standards.

Obama is the anti-JFK.

I thought Bush was bad!!!!!!!

Mike Hilton & Lowly Contractor: I'm with you.

History may remember BushII for his malignant neglect of space exploration and Obama for his conscious decision to forfeit our flagging leadership in space exploration.

Dumping years of analysis on lighting, comm coverage, moon quakes, dust, etc, for an undefined journey with an un-designed spacecraft is, at the very least, a delay that means NASA won't lead any effort to live outside of LEO for at least 20 years. I'm past 50, and I doubt I'll see US astronauts living outside of LEO during my lifetime.

As others have observed, there will be no compelling reason to pursue living in orbit around other bodies in the solar system. The experience of living and building spacecraft in space can be done in LEO. Taking a dangerous and very costly journey to some other body in the solar system, only to orbit and come back, is a job better done by machines; the public isn't likely to pay to send people.

sc220: Before you dismiss the experience of those who have gone before you, you might consider listening to their experience.

@sc220

You often make good comments here. A while back you gave an excellent and much appreciated answer to a question I put here about delta-v budgets for inner solar system missions and the number of attractive NEO targets.

But I need to take issue with one aspect of your comment today.

I'm on record as favoring the "flexible path" option (which I assume is part of what you're referring to, as well as commercialization), and I agree when you say...

The old thinking of millennial frog jumps from Earth to Moon to Mars will hopefully become history.

...but when you say...

It's going to be hard for the older generations to accept, but their days are numbered. The future belongs to the young and those willing to embrace new ideas and approaches.

...it begs a reply.

1) The older generations days are indeed numbered, as are those of the younger generation. If you're young, you'll be amazed at how short, in the grand scheme of things, those days are.

2) The future does belong to the young, and by the time they get there they will be old.

And most important...

3) Being old doesn't necessarily mean thinking in terms of the past. One of the leading advocates of flexible path and commercializing aspects of HSF is Buzz Aldrin, who is pretty old (even older than me!).

Generational warfare, whether directed at the old or the young, is so boring. ;)

Best,
Laura

What I can understand here is Obama political strategy. If he loses Florida he probably will not be reelected. He tried to placate potential Florida voters with a proposed high speed rail system that will never see the light of day.

Has anyone noticed the amount of pull Lockheed has had with both Bush and Obama? Interesting, how the inferior Lockheed F-35 got the go head over the vastly superior F-22. Hmm, wasn't Norman Augustine the CEO of Lockheed Martin. Maybe, Lockheed has a stake in a private manned space program.

Interesting.............

In many ways this whole debacle concerning NASA will probably end up the same way as the USAF Tanker gate controversy last year. There was such outrage that the Airbus design won there was no choice but to cancel the entire competition between Airbus and Boeing. Outrage will be even more severe if NASA's manned space program is cut.
Congress is going to be a pack of angry wolves Tuesday morning.

The next phase will be angry Congressmen and Senators leaving the Democratic party. As of today one Democratic congressmen has left party over this issue.

After half a decade, NASA's human space flight program may have unfortunately "lost the Moon" -- but it may be about to gain the solar system - that is, if Congress wants it to happen. Stay tuned.

How do you "gain the solar system" Keith if you don't build an infrastructure whereby humanity can exploit it? We must use lunar resources to "outwit" Earth's gravity and explore at will. Until we do that, there will only be the occasional, multi-billion dollar launch to somewhere we'll never go.

Without the baggage of US politics this sounds really quite exciting.

Constellation always looked like Flags and Footprints v2.0 to me. Getting nowhere at huge expense. And if the cis-lunar and inner solar system trips don't sound as good as landing on moons and planets, I think they will turn out to catch the imagination in the end, as well as requiring the development of key competencies in which NASA can lead the way.

Involving the commercial sector is more than just a cost saving - it's about bringing space within the sphere of human economic activity (as per the VSE) which is a pre-requisite for a sustainable presence in space.

And I cannot believe that Charlie Bolden is a sell out.

Fingers crossed.

With vaporware you can accomplish anything!

Flexible Path could include the moon eventually. That is: if the funds for a lander become available. Right now, the money isn't available (it also wasn't the last couple of years), but after 2012 or 2016 things may look different than now from a budgetary perspective. What is important, is that the flexible path will be flexible enough to include it from a technical point of view. It will be.

By your logic, the Redstone and Atlas Mercury flights were deathtraps as well. How many astronauts did we lose with that program?

The Falcon 1 failures were a surprise only to the uninformed. They were not unexpected as part of a new vehicle from a new company. Now, if they have additional failures it's another matter.

Ares has NOT flow. Ares I-X was 50% engineering test and 50% PR stunt. It was 0% Ares 1.

Back to the subject at hand...

Commercial spaceflight itself is not a panacea. The goal is not simply to shift the work from the government to the private sector. That would accomplish very little. The goal is to shift the paragram itself. NASA is bloated and inefficient. It's has become a bureaucracy of the worst kind. To Congress, it's nothing more than a jobs program. Real commercial spaceflight means private companies competing with each other. These companies exist to make a profit and they will attempt to do so by controlling expenses, working efficiently and working to make a better product than the competition.

There is no reason to count "old" space companies such as Boeing and Lockheed-Martin out of this either. These organizations know how to compete and they'll have to if they plan on beating someone like SpaceX for contracts. There is no reason to think EADS won't get involved either.

How many people do you think care what type of aircraft they fly on for a commercial flight? Not many. As long as it's safe, cost competitive and comfortable they could care less. The hardware is irrelevant as long as it does the job. The same applies for access to LEO. It's not about the hardware. It's not about jobs. It's about the mission and it's about the money. Period.

netman, the Falcon 9, which is intended to boost the SpaceX Dragon, has not flown yet. So it doesn't have a 40% success rate, it has a success rate of 0/0. Dividing by zero is not a good way to estimate anything.

Then you claim Ares I is a tested vehicle because NASA stuck a big metal blob on a modified SRB and flew it into the ocean? And what are all these safety standards that it has passed?

I'm continually amazed at how a brand-new startup like SpaceX gets disrespect because it didn't fly an absolutely perfect flight of a brand-spanking-new vehicle with brand-spanking-new engines (that would be the one you're thinking of, netman--the Falcon I) while NASA gets wild applause for spending literally billions of our dollars to come up with... well, what have they come up with, Constellation-wise? Is there a boilerplate Orion headed for orbit within the next few months? Because SpaceX will attempt to orbit a boilerplate Dragon on the first Falcon 9 launch in that timeframe.

I suggest taking a look at the differences between Falcon I and Falcon 9 on the SpaceX website, and I also suggest you do a little research on how other space boosters have fared over their first flew flights--keeping in mind that every one of them has had the benefit of being either part of a vast governmental cost-plus contract, or an offshoot of such.

Huge, rich nations have not done what little SpaceX did with $100 million in private funds--which by the way is about 1/5 what us citizens paid for the Ares IX flight.

@Laura

Point well taken, and I apologize for sounding so ageist. Since I'm part of what many new hires would consider "older generation" I probably got too carried away with the generational rhetoric. (Actually, Buz Aldrin has been a big champion of the Flexpath type of approach, and he is definitely not a young whipper-snapper. :))

You are also right that we should stay away from exaggerated comments. I, like many other posters here, want to see eventual human settlement and colonization of the cosmos. However, it's important to recognize the gargantuan hurdles we have in doing anything that requires continuous investment over a long period of time. We are dealing with a political/budgetary environment that operates on multiple 2, 4 and 6 year harmonics (some would say "disharmonics') all superimposed on each other. This is not to mention the numerous stakeholders and constituencies that must be appealed to in order to hold anything together.

Any approach that allows us to conduct human missions beyond LEO quickly is going to have advantages over the approaches of the past. These missions may not be as exciting and glamorous as a lunar outpost or human landing on Mars, but it starts us doing crewed operations out of Earth orbit and provides in-space infrastructure that will be necessary for eventual human surface missions.

Uhhhhh... I hate to burst your bubble but Lockheed-Martin makes both the F-22 Raptor AND the F-35 Lightning II. They are very different aircraft for different roles have quite disparate costs. Beyond that, since they're both made by the same company, what's your point?

It's also worth noting that the rail project isn't something they came up with last week to soften the blow. It's been in the works for a very long time.

Could you also enlighten us as to which member of Congress switch party affiliation from Democrat to Republican over this? Please? I'd really like to know.

LOL, I guess SpaceX Falcon 1 is being compared to early Atlas rockets. Geez, I hope they can do better than that. I believe the overall success rate for the Atlas family is 80%. With a higher success rate towards the end then the beginning. The early astronauts and test pilots definitely risked their lives!

As much as I hate to say it as an engineer working with NASA, the organization has become welfare for scientists and engineers with an emphasis on the scientists even though the organization was created as an engineering directorate. We could have gone to the moon AND Mars on the money allocated, but by the time the money was given to every NASA center to satisfy the congressman from those states the money was spread way to thin. Regardless I think this announcement today is tantamount to killing American manned space flight to which the consequences are catastrophic.

Conflating the Falcons 1 and 9 again. And again... Falcon 1 was not designed for crew transport. Falcon 9, the Dragon launch vehicle, has not yet flown. What is so difficult to understand about that?

"We must use lunar resources to "outwit" Earth's gravity and explore at will. Until we do that, there will only be the occasional, multi-billion dollar launch to somewhere we'll never go."

With respect to a long time lunar advocate, whilst agreeing in principle with what you say, there are two important points to consider.

1/ The Moon Treaty or rather the absence of any meaningful International Legal Framework to do the exploitation. The resolution of who owns what I have covered elsewhere however I would repeat that solving *that* problem makes all the problems of hardware design and manufacture pale into insignificance. 'Affordable path' smashes that difficult question into the long grass for a six! (Cricketing analogy:) Perhaps in a decade or so with more international cooperation on the ground and in space.. we can address this issue in a multilateral manner.

2/ The renewable Lunar Hydroxyl cycle is a real plus for Water and thus the whole O'Neillian/ Marburgerian Vision of "Off World Colonies" However exploiting Asteroidal Resources is IN THE LONG RUN a better bet. From my reading Phobos makes for an increasingly valuable watering hole and there is always Ceres. Followed rapidly (!) by the Oort Cometary Halo. And as we all know once you're in Oort Orbit you're halfway to Proxima Centauri! (To paraphase RAH)

Even O'Neill envisaged a minimal Lunar base with minimal crew dedicated to servicing and maintaining the Lunar Catapult and that was well before we discovered the HUGE numbers of Apollo/ Aten/ Amors just waiting to be utilised and without the need to bother with that pesky Moon Treaty!

Now it's true that with everyone critically in the way of everyone else on the 'affordable path' *may* be a recipe for disaster. But mutual inter-dependence is Nature's Way too. It's not all Dog Eats Dog! And eventually with multiple partners and multiple architectures will come synergy and redundancy. The Race to the Moon is over! You won! There's no need for you to win again!

It's a very appropriate and illustrative comparison. The failure rate of Redstone and Atlas boosters before their respective first manned launches was abysmal. So, Redstone and Atlas... two first of their kind vehicles with new engines and avionics. Falcon 1, a first of it's kind vehicle with new engines and avionics. Redstone and Atlas were developed by experienced aerospace corporations with huge loads of military money. Falcon 1 was developed with a small amount of private capital by a startup company.

Redstone was retired and Atlas has gone on to be an reliable and illustrious launch vehicle. I wonder what will happen to Falcon 1 and 9?

It's s very interesting compare and contrast to me.

To me it sounds like you are putting more emphasis on "experienced" than I would. I may be wrong about what you intended. Sorry. The 50s and early 60s was time dedicated to the learning curve. This includes some of the basics. The engineers at that time were of the same intelligence as todays, but they were still gaining experience. I would like to argue that any launch company now should have much more experience then the engineers of that time. Regardless of size. In fact, smaller may be better. And the design, analysis, and manufacturing resources a modern space corporation has access to is way beyond what existed in the 50s and 60s. Even to a smaller company.

So, maybe, a comparison between SpaceX and their current "newer" peers is in order. Below are some numbers from wiki. Please add to them or correct me where necessary.

Orbital, Pegasus (Std & XL) 40 launches, three failures
Orbital, Taurus: 8 launches, two failures
Sea Launch, Zenit-3SL: 30 launches, two failures
SpaceX, Falcon 1: 5 launches, three failures

Sea Launch Zenit is Boeing and a few other giant companies flying a Soviet booster designed in the 1970s and first launched in the mid-80s. Not in any way comparable to the SpaceX vehicles or the SpaceX company.

I agree with your first sentence. And, the discussion is about reliability/safety. So, are you saying that SpaceX is more or less reliable because of the points you mentioned? Or, that the two should just not be compared? In which case, for reliability, why should they not be compared?

Just saw your first reply to me. I wasn't mixing up Falcon 1 and 9. A comparison was being made between Falcon 1 and early Atlas by Mike. And, I said I hoped SpaceX could do better than that. Quoting you "What is so difficult to understand about that?" So, what are your thoughts about whether Falcon 1 is doing better or worse than early Atlas?

>>
Orbital, Pegasus (Std & XL) 40 launches, three failures
Orbital, Taurus: 8 launches, two failures
Sea Launch, Zenit-3SL: 30 launches, two failures
SpaceX, Falcon 1: 5 launches, three failures
>>

Wow, SpaceX is a lot worse than I thought. It would be madness to rely on this rocket to send anything into space.

Brobof:

One problem with your premise in item (1) is that the "Moon Treaty" of 1975 has not been ratified by any of the space faring nations (you use the word "ratified" on your wordpress site, but that isn't so). You can see the 2009-01 status at this link.

France and India have come close by reaching "signed" status, but none of Russia, US, China, Japan, and India have ratified it.

As to the rest of the argument, I can only say that I'm past 50, and I've seen enough to recognize a non-starter. I've worked this stuff for my entire career, and I assert that the flexible path can't be defined well enough to stay viable in Washington DC.

By its very nature, it's not possible to design hardware. It's trying to be everything to solar system travel, but it will end up being a detour. How do you design hardware for prop, ECLSS, EPS, comm, etc when you don't know where you're going, how long it will take to get there, how long you will stay, and on and on? We do not yet have the luxury to take an SUV space vehicle on a trip to the end of the driveway to get the mail.

You assert that Gerry O'Neil thought the Moon would have a "minimal" role. I went to the Princeton Conferences when Gerry was around. The Moon was an important step (hence his deep interest in the Mass Driver).

The technological challenges of finding an asteroid target, establishing that it's resources are more valuable and more accessible than those on the Moon, determining its environment (lighting, radiation, dust, makeup, etc), creating a safe and short mission abort strategy, and then developing the hardware to reach it, exploit it, and return safely, will ground the US space program for at least 20 years longer then a Lunar program.

And worse, this approach eschews the evolutionary approach that I hoped the US could adopt. Once again, we'll avoid the stepping stone that bekons every night and try for something because it's newer and 'differenter'.

Since Bolden said in his interview in Israel that we don't have the technological know how to protect astronauts from radiation for a journey to Mars, there are clearly not going to be any Flexible Path trips to the moons of Mars using chemical rocket technology. And I would argue that the same would be true for a multi-month round trip to a NEO asteroid.

So this pretty much limits the Flexible Path to the Moon and the Langrange points unless NASA finally decides to invest in lightsail technology that could easily transport thousands of tonnes to Mars and to practically any region between Mercury and Jupiter.

But we really need to stop fooling around and just fund the Altair lunar lander. I doubt if it will cost more than it did to develop the Apollo LM using 1960s technology. The LM cost $11 billion to develop in today's dollars and took less than 6 years before astronauts were testing it in space.

Marcel F. Williams

The Moon Treaty was ratified by sufficient parties and is in force. It has been part of International law since 1984. Like most Treaties, those that do not sign or subsequently resile are not bound by its contents. Vide NPT and: Iran; N.Korea; Israel; India; etc. HOWEVER countries flouting its principles may well find themselves flouting the principles of the Treaty on Outer Space as well as finding themselves tried in the court of International public opinion!

"I assert that the flexible path can't be defined well enough to stay viable in Washington DC"
From what I see Flexible Path is a slow spiral of enhanced *Architecture* rather than a set of Goals. MoonBase tomorrow Mars by next Thursday etc. Moreover FP may even be an Internationalised Cis and Trans Lunar Transportation Infrastructure!
Thus Washington may not have more than one vote in the matter... unless, like Samson, they decide to bring the whole Temple to American HSF crashing down on themselves. I would remind you that the IPs made themselves quite clear that should the ISS be trashed so would America's future reputation as a trusted partner in space. Hence the findings of the HSF Committee and current ISS plans.

With respect, we do know where we are going: Deep Space. And we are going to have to learn how to survive in deep space for months and even years at a time. Radiation ECLSS are the challenges that must be met

Ultimately if the O'Neillian habitats get built entire generations will be born live and die hopefully on the way to AlphaCent where there will (probably be more asteroids to make more Deep Space Arks. Who needs Planets?

The Moon *was* an important step because, short of the Asteroids (Chapter 11: "Homesteading the Asteroids" ...the Moon was to be the primary source of construction materials. Even so the Mass Driver installation (remember the processing was to be done in space) was "not more than a few thousand tons" (p 137 in my copy) And although he did not know of the huge tonnage of potentially CHONish material already in space and 'circling' us between Venus and Mars I think that if he had been with us he too would have been a fan of the Flexible Path. As would Dandridge Cole! After all if we could tunnel-form or even bubble-form a few Atens, Apollos, Amors & whatnot...it would save us a lot of unnecessary construction work.

The Moon Treaty was ratified by sufficient parties and is in force. It has been part of International law since 1984. Like most Treaties, those that do not sign or subsequently resile are not bound by its contents. Vide NPT and: Iran; N.Korea; Israel; India; etc. HOWEVER countries flouting its principles may well find themselves flouting the principles of the Treaty on Outer Space as well as finding themselves tried in the court of International public opinion!

"I assert that the flexible path can't be defined well enough to stay viable in Washington DC"
From what I see Flexible Path is a slow spiral of enhanced *Architecture* rather than a set of Goals. MoonBase tomorrow Mars by next Thursday etc. Moreover FP may even turn out to be an Internationalised Cis and Trans Lunar Transportation Infrastructure! Thus Washington may not have more than one vote in the matter... unless, like Samson, they decide to bring the whole Temple to American HSF crashing down on themselves. I would remind you that the IPs made themselves quite clear: that should the ISS be trashed, so would America's future reputation as a trusted partner in space. Hence the findings of the HSF Committee and current backtracking on Bush II plans for the ISS.

With respect, we do know where we are going: Deep Space. And we are going to have to learn how to survive in deep space for months and even years at a time. Radiation/ ECLSS/ etc. are the challenges that must be met. Whilst failing to comprehend your SUV analogy (sorry:( let me reply with one of my own. The Moon is an Island that we can see just off shore; we have, using a floating log, managed to get there and back again - more by luck than judgment. We have yet to develop a dug out canoe and the ama is decades away but those clouds on the horizon are other Islands and we have the whole Pacific to colonise!

Ultimately when the O'Neillian Habitats get built, entire generations will be born, live and die; hopefully on the way to AlphaCent... where there will be more asteroids to make more Deep Space Arks. Who needs Planets?

The Moon *was* an important step because, short of the MAIN BELT Asteroids (Chapter 11: "Homesteading the Asteroids" ...the Moon was to be the primary source of construction materials. Even so the Mass Driver installation (remember the processing was to be done in space) was "not more than a few thousand tons" (p 137 in my copy) And although he did not know of the huge tonnage of potentially CHONish material already in space and 'circling' us between Venus and Mars, I think that if he was still with us, he too would have been a fan of the Flexible Path. As would, for that matter, Dandridge Cole! After all, if we could tunnel-form or even bubble-form a few Atens, Apollos, Amors & whatnot...it would save us a lot of unnecessary construction work.

Marcel F. Williams - You work for NASA, right? Do you honestly believe what you wrote earlier:

"But we really need to stop fooling around and just fund the Altair lunar lander. I doubt if it will cost more than it did to develop the Apollo LM using 1960s technology. The LM cost $11 billion to develop in today's dollars and took less than 6 years before astronauts were testing it in space."

You think NASA can build Altair for $1B? Based upon what logic or previous recent history? Do you know how big Altair is compared to the Apollo LM? Do you not know how risk-averse NASA management is, and how indecisive they have proven to be when it comes freezing requirements? There is absolutely no way NASA could build a man-rated lunar lander for $1B. It will never happen - maybe $8B, but never $1B!

Brobof:

I'm ashamed of the US treatment of world opinion, and saddened that the world mostly looks away.

But the harsh reality is that any sort of "trial", by international criminal court or by world public opinion is extremely unlikely.

If you think about it, you might even agree: the country that reaches the Moon first will find the accolades far outnumber, and far outweigh any bad publicity.

Ali Kinani and 16 others were killed in Nissour Square, where is the outrage, much less the justice? For heaven's sake, extraordinary rendition, torture, and the whole Iraq war hasn't triggered any movement towards either type of trial. If those can't do it, I don't think a lunar mining outpost can.

As to IPs: I'm guessing you aren't very aware of the nature of the relationship. The IPs live in a tenuous world, caught between US politics and their own desires. They've mostly been masterful at navigating troubled waters, and ultimatums aren't likely to be the order of the day for them.

My SUV analogy: it's ridiculous to think a single family of vehicles will be suitable for a variety of space missions. If you drive an SUV to the end of your driveway, you are wasting resources that could be used more wisely. You get away with it if you're rich, but we don't yet have the luxury to be wasteful if we're going into space.

Deep Space/Pacific Islands/tunnel-forming: sorry, I thought we were talking about US space plans, not next-century futurism.

One gets you to the Moon, the other lets you watch others take that next step. The Moon is a stepping stone that beckons us most nights. I think it's foolish to deny that, and it's wasting valuable time.

drugsinspace
"But the harsh reality is that any sort of "trial", by international criminal court or by world public opinion is extremely unlikely."
Sorry America is already on trial in the second court... President Obama has only brought you a slight stay in the proceedings! And as for the first, unlike most other civilised Nations the United States is currently lumped in with China and Russia (amongst others) in refusing to accept its jurisdiction. So yes Bush II and all the other American war criminals can breath a sigh of relief. Unlike Tony Blair! If America were to fully sign up to its jurisdiction however...
Nah it'll never happen.

"If you think about it, you might even agree: the country that reaches the Moon first will find the accolades far outnumber, and far outweigh any bad publicity."

Er... America did and claimed it for all Humanity. Much cheers and felicitations followed, even if Nixon was in power. Alas Vietnam (Agent Orange), ... Iraq (Depleted Uranium) have, over the years, 'tainted' those accolades.
But what if say: China landed in Cabaeus and claimed its resources would be used to further the Socialist Revolution and thus benefit the rest of the world! Or some ultra capitalist did the same for the benefit of his Swiss bank account! Accolades? I think not! If nothing else a return to the Moon Treaty Ver 2.0 will stop Robotic Tourists from trashing Tranquility Base and carting bits of Lunokhod back as souvenirs.

As to IPs: I'm guessing you aren't very aware of of what's going on in the rest of the World: closer cooperation between ESA and Russia; Russia and China; China and various SEAC powers; India and almost everybody! Like ITAR, unilateral Cx made them seek other partners.
Trashing the ISS was for some a final straw. (Actually trashing the CRV was for some: cela a été le bouquet!) Polite ultimata were made; I know 'cos I heard them! Result: ISS to 2020... at least.

However on the bright side: if the unilateralist VSE of Bush is replaced with a multi-lateralist revision by Obama; then an International return to the Moon may be possible in both our lifetimes. Assuming you don't mind using an ESA Hab, a Russian Lunar Lander and a Chinese OTV! Is that nough SUVs? Or rather hybrid compacts. Because this time its Apollo ON A BUDGET!

I would merely add in passing that nowhere have I advocated a single SUV type architecture??? My personal favorite has always been OASIS (RASC):
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/484S03/oasis_docs/oasis_docs.html
I'm sorry your analogy makes no sense at all.

"Deep Space/Pacific Islands/tunnel-forming: sorry, I thought we were talking about US space plans, not next-century futurism."

Er you were critiquing my comment to Anne Spudis': "How do you "gain the solar system" Keith if you don't build an infrastructure whereby humanity can exploit it?"

And its premis utilising of NEO Asteroidal resources instead of Lunar ones in the classic bootstrapping of Space Colonisation advocated by everyone from Tsiolkovski to Marburger. So YES we were talking Next Century Futurism!

Do try to keep up.

And whilst we are at it drugsinspace:
We are in the next century!
Unless you think that we won't be visiting any asteroids in the next 90 years!
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/
Vesta T-532 days. Whoot!