The Shuttle's Successors

[saundby]

A good quick overview with pics of what's presently in the works:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14089297

I really like the size comparison with the Shuttle Orbiter.

The current lot was chosen on the basis of systems that have a good handle on the whole package (launch vehicle, orbiter, integration with ISS systems.) The prior round was selected more on the basis of the orbital vehicle only.

My personal opinion:
While Dragon/Falcon 9 is setting a pace that'll be tough to match by anyone else, all of these commercial projects are solid projects with an honest chance at becoming operational. The only one I see as strongly at risk of failure is the government project. I expect only a couple of the commercial projects to get selected for continued NASA support, but I think the "losers" will get enough support to continue anyway, with at least one "loser" going on to actual orbital manned flight alongside the two NASA winners.

I'm expecting the shift in mindset of the public upon repeated commercial successes to torpedo government funded spacecraft development (MPCV) in about 2-3 years. Differing missions notwithstanding.

 

[aramis]

There's a very real possibility that commercial spaceflight may result in public perception of a need for a US military presence in space...

 

[Spinward Scout]

There's a very real possibility that commercial spaceflight may result in public perception of a need for a US military presence in space...

Space Pirates! Where do I sign up?

 

[saundby]

There's a very real possibility that commercial spaceflight may result in public perception of a need for a US military presence in space...

You're right.

I should rephrase: commercial success could torpedo public support for government civil spacecraft development.

I think it'll take at least a decade or more, or a significant event affecting civilians in space, before the public perceives the need for any form of police protection or military protection in space. But if commercial space takes off (so to speak), the demand will come.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

There's a very real possibility that commercial spaceflight may result in public perception of a need for a US military presence in space...

<cough>UN Outer Space Treaty<cough>

 

[saundby]

<cough>UN Outer Space Treaty<cough>

Public perception. In the public mind, I doubt there'll be a perceived difference between a military communications satellite and an armed spacecraft (some of which have already been flown.)

Anyway, I want to steer clear of politics. Folks of the future (probably including our future selves) will have to sort it out.

 

[hdan]

<cough>UN Outer Space Treaty<cough>

Does that bind non-governmental entities?

 

[BlackBat242]

I'm sure private "security contractors" would be employed... and, after a few incidents, there would be a call for governmental take-over to bring order to the situation (and a suitable "adjustment" to the UN Space Treaty to allow "governmental Security & Police Forces" in space).

Like the Chinese casino owner who bought the incomplete aircraft carrier Varyag from the Ukraine a decade ago (for use as a floating casino, with the contract stipulation it could not be used for military service)... which ship is now owned by the Chinese government, and is months away from commissioning in the PLAN (Chinese Navy)?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Does that bind non-governmental entities?

Probably not, unless they're government contractors.

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

<cough>UN Outer Space Treaty<cough>

The treaty doesn't prevent any Earth nation (or any other group, for that matter) from putting their own fleet of TL-7 SDBs into orbit; there's nothing in it, for example, that would have prevented NASA from riddling the shuttle's hull with kewl streamlined LASER turrets, if they had wanted to.

Basically, the signatory nations agreed to keep outer space a nuke-free (or any other WMD) zone. But any weapons short of that aren't banned -- although everybody (officially) frowns on the idea.

Significantly, the Vilani are not signatories.

I'm sure private "security contractors" would be employed... and, after a few incidents, there would be a call for governmental take-over to bring order to the situation (and a suitable "adjustment" to the UN Space Treaty to allow "governmental Security & Police Forces" in space).

The treaty already covers that. Nations are responsible for whatever they do in space -- whether it be via a governmental or non-governmental entity. So if Richard Branson goes off his nut and decides to use his fleet of Virgin Galactic orbiters to wipe Racine, Wisconsin off the map, the UK might be held liable for it.

Presumably, Branson and the UK could then be brought up before the dreaded UNOOSA (UN Office for Outer Space Affairs), which would no doubt deliver unto them a quite severe dressing-down over the incident.

 

[BytePro]

Waiting to see what happens when somebody's intentionally destroyed satellite debris (U.S. and China so far as I know) destroys another country's expensive and critical satellite (they all are expensive) or worse, takes lives.

The ASAT tests have dispersed thousands of decent sized chunks of debris that will remain in dispersed orbits for decades. Fortunately, even near space is huge, but they still have to be tracked and there is still a very real chance of collisions.