Obama withdraws funding for constellation

[Windbourne]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

"According to the Direct ppl and a number of NASA engineers, this can be done in under 3 years. The reason is that it is the same plan that NASA had back under reagan. It was pushed through a number of planning groups and only needed funding from reagan to go. reagan choose to not do that."

That is not quite historically accurate. The space shuttle derived "Shuttle-C" concept studied intermittently during the Reagan and Bush I administrations under several variants would basically have replaced the shuttle orbiter with an expendable cargo pod hanging on the side of a standard production shuttle external tank and powered by 3 SSME on the base of the new pod. Stock 4 segment SRB's would have completed the vehicle. Those design studies were followed by ones for an inline launch vehicle based upon an ET derived core stage with several expendable variant SSME on the boat tail of the tank. Standard 4 segment SRB'S would have been used. This latter concept was called the National Launch System which morphed to the Advanced Launch System when the Air Force objected to the initial name. This design progressed all the way to passing it's Preliminary Design Review early in the Clinton years and then ran out of steam when Congress refused additional funding. The Direct concept was inspired by the work on ALS, definitely not Shuttle-C which it turns out would be more expensive to design, manufacture, and, most significantly, operate. There seems to be considerable enthusiasm developing in certain agency quarters for the cost, production, manpower, and facilities synergies that the so-called "Jupiter" launch vehicle family will give the U.S. human spaceflight program. That is particularly why so much of the tooth gnashing in this thread is totally unwarranted. Even if the commercial LEO vehicles do not pan out, pretty unlikely considering the probable contestants, the fast to build from existing hardware "Jupiter" proof of concept vehicle will be easy to declare "man-rated" and available to function as a ISS/LEO launcher almost from the start.

My bad; You are right and I am wrong. I picked that up from some place out, but it was wrong.
I just google it and checked wiki.
Thanx for the correction.

...
Chill out people. This is not the end...it could truly be the beginning of the second "Golden Age".

If obama and congress will do the right thing, then it is possible that we will be on the moon before 2020.
I would VERY much like to watch that again.

 

[menellom]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

You know, something just occurred to me.

Assuming all goes well with (what sounds like it will be) the new proposal, we could have a Jupiter/Jupiter-like rocket flying within 3 years, and a lot of commercial partners actively involved with the country's space program.

Imagine what would happen then, if after those 3 years, suddenly ____ starts launching more people into space and our country (acting out of that wonderful insecurity we've all grown to love) gets involved in a second space race to the Moon/Mars... suddenly we find ourselves with a fleet of already flying rockets, a massive domestic space industry, AND a sudden, massive influx of funding to 'beat those _____ to space'.

:shock:

 

[quatermass]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

I still don't think you Space Cadets are getting it... I used to be like you, until I got an insight into the inner workings of the business, and took a realistic look at the history of the space programme in the US. Direct will not go anywhere, because the decision-makers don't like it or the people behind it, and it just doesn't fit - "not invented here" syndrome. As for having it flying within a year - say it out loud and hear how ludicrous it sounds! What are you smoking! SSME production lines still in place? I'd like to see a photo of that. Seriously, if was given the green light today, and adequate funding to proceed "as advertised", there won't be anything on the pad for at least three years. But it's a moot point. Do you really want to see the list of "Really great programmes that were logical, worth doing, built on knowledge and experience, would have saved money (and lives) in the long run, were cost effective, but got cancelled at the last minute"?

As for the military involvement being "a bad thing" as it is in the case of Russia, China, India etc. - can memories be that short? Lets count 'em - Redstone, Atlas, Titan, Shuttle (that's right - the shuttle ended up the way it is because it's what the military demanded), even good old Delta goes back to the Thor missile, and many others. US Military = good, foreign military = bad. Fair enough.

We could go on trading anecdotes and studies and powerpoint slides, but in the end we'll just have to wait and see. History teaches us that the best you can hope for will be a poorly funded, badly thought through, expensive dead end which everyone will complain about bitterly, fuelling endless bouts of "what ifs" and "if only". So, no Constellation/Ares, no Direct V3, no Moon landings, no Mars landings (like that was ever going to happen), no asteroid missions - what's left? Falcon 9 and Dragon... great. Some guys in a capsule - a capsule, for God's sake, launched to the ISS once a year until it's dumped into the Pacific, then what? It's 2010 already - ISS is only planned to be up there for another 5 years - OK, let's string it out to 2020 by sucking money out of other programmes. Is that really a space programme worthy of the United States of America?

Well, we'll know soon enough, but the writing is on the wall for all to see. At least they should outright cancel Ares/Constellation rather than let it undergo the death of a thousand cuts - but as that is the worst of all possible decisions, and will effectively fatally hamstring all other options, you can bet that's what will happen. "The United States will always do the right thing in the end, but only when all other possibilities have been exhausted".

Wait five years, and you'll be as jaded, cynical and depressed at the predictability of it all as the rest of us. We'll keep your seat warm for you, at "Space Cadets Anonymous".

 

[marsin2010]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

"Direct will not go anywhere, because the decision-makers don't like it or the people behind it, and it just doesn't fit - "not invented here" syndrome."

Sorry, but this statement is now "inoperative". Indeed, I have just seen confirmation that, not only is a vehicle very much looking like a Jupiter 24x about to become an official MSFC project but JSC and MAF are onboard as are all the 'big' industry players...you all can figure them out!

An HLV will fly in less than three years.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

An HLV will fly in less than three years.

I'll bet you 500 quatloos that ain't gonna happen

 

[menellom]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

Nobody's suggesting something like Jupiter could be ready in a year. More like three or four. Falcon 9 has it's first launch test in a month and further demo launches this year. SpaceX's current schedule has it starting operations some time in 2011.

Wait five years, and you'll be as jaded, cynical and depressed at the predictability of it all as the rest of us.

You can be as cynical and depressed as you want to. That's your right. But don't presume your pessimistic voice speaks for everyone.

 

[Windbourne]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

An HLV will fly in less than three years.

I'll bet you 500 quatloos that ain't gonna happen

Conditional on what Obama announces on Monday AND what Congress does with that, I will take that bet.
The real issue is what Obama will announce (we all have different ideas of it based on where you read; many read faux while others are reading what engineers have to say such as at nasaspaceflight.com ), AND what CONgress will do.
If Congress fights this, and pushes for Constellation because of jobs in their area, it will set this back.
OTH, if done right, and Obama gets Congress to do the right thing, then this will be done in 3 short years, and we get falcon 9 launching humans in 2012.

 

[marsin2010]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

"If Congress fights this, and pushes for Constellation because of jobs in their area, it will set this back."

Due to the significant work load for MSFC in designing and integrating the SD HLV, Senator Shelby is now on board.

 

[menellom]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

An HLV will fly in less than three years.

I'll bet you 500 quatloos that ain't gonna happen

Conditional on what Obama announces on Monday AND what Congress does with that, I will take that bet.
The real issue is what Obama will announce (we all have different ideas of it based on where you read; many read faux while others are reading what engineers have to say such as at nasaspaceflight.com ), AND what CONgress will do.
If Congress fights this, and pushes for Constellation because of jobs in their area, it will set this back.
OTH, if done right, and Obama gets Congress to do the right thing, then this will be done in 3 short years, and we get falcon 9 launching humans in 2012.

Agreed, although I still say we're all jumping the gun a bit in predicting this and that. The budget gets 'unveiled' Monday and NASA has a press conference to announce and discuss whatever the decision is that afternoon (2pm ET on NASATV and nasa.gov). Let's see what happens.

"If Congress fights this, and pushes for Constellation because of jobs in their area, it will set this back."
Due to the significant work load for MSFC in designing and integrating the SD HLV, Senator Shelby is now on board.

Well that's good to hear.

 

[High_Evolutionary]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

So there seems to be a little bit of "well I didn't say we couldn't give more funds to Nasa" game playing at the last minute. Three years for a HLV and private gives us Falcon for LEO? I think if we are reduced to LEO that we probably wouldn't rely on just Falcon. Not good to have all your eggs in one basket(excuse the cliche). Yes there's rides with Soyuz(which I believe is already in the works for ISS if necessary), I strongly doubt the U.S. will allow this to become a plan B for LEO, to much pride.

 

[gordon_flash]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

There's no reason to panic. Private enterprise built the shuttle, apollo, gemini, and mercury. There's no reason private enterprise can't take the reins and buid a successor to the shuttle, based on the "constellation" system.

 

[lumpyinjasper]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

Does anybody else still remember the sense of wonderment we all felt when the first Mercury missions launched? Or the amazement we all had of the photo's we watched on black and white tv's as they came back from the Gemini program? And of all things , the debut of the Saturn 5 for the Apollo missions as we watched humanity's progress towards the Moon. Remember Walter Cronkite, the sound of his voice on the televisions all over the world as the drama of Apollo 13 unfolded? No matter what race, creed, or color we were, no matter what we thought of God, or whether his existence really mattered or not (personal choice for all, no offence meant to anyone) we all cheered when the hatch blew open on those rough seas after re-entry and all three crew members emerged alive. All humanity did.

No programs should ever end abruptly but only change and transform as long as those of us who really care still raise our voices. Trouble is, where or who do we raise them to? Who, if anyone will listen? The private sector will always be motivated by their greed for profit, but should we deny them because of their belief in a return on their investment? It is, after all their money. Let's hope they don't get too greedy and retain some degree of a moral conscience as to the good of all mankind as their bank balances accrue. As to governments, well, we all know the inevitable result of the desires for power,control, and pomposity that only they could possibly generate. How many many wars do we all need, with us all watching as enough to feed the planet, fix our climate problems, and on and on ad nauseum launches our weapons skyward? Whatever happens budget wise, fiscally wise, government wise, business wise, whatever wise, it will all come to pass in due time. And time will march on as always, as will the movements of the stars and planets. We will pass, sorry but all humanity will pass, and only the stars and time will be left to judge if our presence meant anything of any consequence.

So let's never become jaded, I'd like to say never become cynical bit disappointment is such an overriding emotion, the question being who are we really disappointed in. Above all, we must never be depressed. Sadness is acceptable, we can overcome that as we analyze that which we attempted to accomplish but failed. To be depressed runs the risk of losing hope and that we must not do.

Per Ardua Ad Astra

 

[menellom]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

So there seems to be a little bit of "well I didn't say we couldn't give more funds to Nasa" game playing at the last minute. Three years for a HLV and private gives us Falcon for LEO? I think if we are reduced to LEO that we probably wouldn't rely on just Falcon. Not good to have all your eggs in one basket(excuse the cliche). Yes there's rides with Soyuz(which I believe is already in the works for ISS if necessary), I strongly doubt the U.S. will allow this to become a plan B for LEO, to much pride.

Missions on the Soyuz will most certainly continue, and once the ESA finishes work on the man-rated variation of the Ariane 5 they intend to use it to launch Orion capsules. That plus the Falcon 9 and whatever NASA develops gives us not two but four options!

No programs should ever end abruptly but only change and transform as long as those of us who really care still raise our voices.

The difference between programs like Mercury and Apollo versus Constellation is that the prior programs actually had proper funding and support. Constellation was set up for failure from day one, right now it's a decade behind, at best. It simply makes more sense to go a different direction with a different rocket.

So let's never become jaded, I'd like to say never become cynical but disappointment is such an overriding emotion, the question being who are we really disappointed in. Above all, we must never be depressed. Sadness is acceptable, we can overcome that as we analyze that which we attempted to accomplish but failed. To be depressed runs the risk of losing hope and that we must not do.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

I agree completely!

 

[Windbourne]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

So there seems to be a little bit of "well I didn't say we couldn't give more funds to Nasa" game playing at the last minute. Three years for a HLV and private gives us Falcon for LEO? I think if we are reduced to LEO that we probably wouldn't rely on just Falcon. Not good to have all your eggs in one basket(excuse the cliche). Yes there's rides with Soyuz(which I believe is already in the works for ISS if necessary), I strongly doubt the U.S. will allow this to become a plan B for LEO, to much pride.

Actually, I think (hope?) that the plan IS to have multiple companies. We were screwed when the shuttle was down. In addition, if we are going to depend on Privates to give us service, then we NEED multiple companies. Ideally 3-4 of them.
The hard part here is to make certain that they have enough revenue and profits to remain in business (and ideally grow). That will give us the low cost as well as guarantee that the future is not held hostage to relying on just one vehicle. The ONLY way to do that, is to have multiple destinations for these launches. Sats are not enough. So, what we need is multiple stations (Bigelow) and ultimately the moon. I am hoping that Obama will push that. The fact that NASA has been talking to BA is a great sign.

 

[Windbourne]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

...
Missions on the Soyuz will most certainly continue, and once the ESA finishes work on the man-rated variation of the Ariane 5 they intend to use it to launch Orion capsules. That plus the Falcon 9 and whatever NASA develops gives us not two but four options!
...

Really? Where did you hear that?
If so, then we will need the multiple destinations as fast as possible to keep these companies busy. That means that we will have to get BA's up there and then shoot for the moon.

 

[menellom]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

...
Missions on the Soyuz will most certainly continue, and once the ESA finishes work on the man-rated variation of the Ariane 5 they intend to use it to launch Orion capsules. That plus the Falcon 9 and whatever NASA develops gives us not two but four options!
...

Really? Where did you hear that?
If so, then we will need the multiple destinations as fast as possible to keep these companies busy. That means that we will have to get BA's up there and then shoot for the moon.

A couple of the governments involved in the ESA (I know France for sure, can't remember the others) recently backed a study to look into the idea of an Ariane 5/Orion launch. The study concluded it's a definite possibility with the man-rated variation of the Ariane 5 rocket that's been proposed... unfortunately, due mostly to the minimal funding the ESA has for rocket development (only a couple billion), it probably wouldn't be ready until 2016, 2017 :?

But still, think of where we might be in just 10 years.

Soyuz will continue it's average of 2-3 flights a year.
Space X, once the Falcon 9 is up and running, plans to launch 5-6 times a year (about half of which will be NASA contracts, the other half will include private satellites as well as the Bigelow Aerospace module prototype)
NASA, once the new Jupiter/Jupiter-like rocket is up and running will likely be flying 3-4 missions a year,
And the Ariane 5/Orion combo would be launching 1-2 a year.

By the end of the decade, rather than the, say, 5 launches (~2-3 shuttles, ~2-3 soyuz) we're averaging a year now, there could be 10-15 launches a year and that's if SpaceX is the only company launching by decade's end, imagine if another two or three companies get 'spaceborne'?

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

...
Missions on the Soyuz will most certainly continue, and once the ESA finishes work on the man-rated variation of the Ariane 5 they intend to use it to launch Orion capsules. That plus the Falcon 9 and whatever NASA develops gives us not two but four options!
...

Really? Where did you hear that?

Here:
Orion on Ariane (forum)
or directly:
French govt study backs Orion Ariane 5 launch (external, one of)

The Ariane 5 ME will be able to place 22,000kg (48,400lb) into a 180km (111 mile) 28.5° inclination circular orbit, greater than the 21,400kg required for Orion - this includes a reduction in Orion propellant mass that is possible because "no circularization burn is required with the A5ME proposed injection strategy"

 

[menellom]

Re: Obama withdrawals funding for constellation

Well tomorrow's the big day. Tune in to CSPAN and some news networks at 11:30am ET tomorrow to hear the budget be presented to congress. Then NASATV at 2pm ET for their big NASA's big press conference.

 

[ppatton]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

No company currently has the capability to launch astronauts into orbit

Currently as in 'right this second'? No. But Falcon 9 launches in a month, and while their Dragon capsule still needs some work, the Falcon 9 Heavy could easily be adapted to carry the nearly finished Orion capsule.

My concern was primarily economic, not technological. I'm wondering whether the American taxpayer will really reap any benefits by privatizing human transport to LEO at this time. To create a competitive market that would drive down prices, multiple companies would need to have the capacity to launch astronauts into orbit, with NASA choosing the one offering them the best deal, and switching its choice as needed to maintain the best deal. Given the limited astronaut traffic to LEO (NASA astronauts and an occasional few millionaire tourists), it doesn't seem likely that this sort of situation will arise in the near future. Instead, NASA will fund just one or two companies (Space X has Dragon, but does Orbital Services have a manned craft in the works?), and then will be dependent on a private, for-profit monopoly to launch its astronauts. Without a competitive market, how is that supposed to reduce prices over NASA owning and operating the system itself? It seems to me that this is a very bad deal for the American taxpayers that will keep transport costs of people to LEO high. The COTS program was devised under the Bush administration, and the Republicans clearly have ideological, rather than economic, reasons for wanting to privatize another chunk of NASA. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't have its own simple Soyuz-like spacecraft and launcher in the works, so I suppose Obama didn't have many options. It just doesn't seem like good public policy for the government to subsidize the creation of a private monopoly, which it will then depend upon for the provision of a service. NASA needs to cut costs by getting tougher on its contractors, by demanding more competition and cheaper better results. It doesn't seem like the COTS scheme accomplishes that. On other matters, if Obama does go for DIRECT over Constellation, that sounds like an excellent choice which will serve America's space program well.

 

[Tritium]

Re: Obama withdrawals funding for constellation

President Obama is faced with very critical demands for the funds available during the remainder of his current term of office.So he has to cut and trim where he can,to put more money where it is vitally needed.I understand this.It is just an unfortunate reality that much of this funding has to go to military expenditures,rather than our manned space programs.

Our future destiny as an intelligent species is in the colonization of the planets and moons of our solar system,and as our technology advances,we will move into the frontier of our galaxy.We will explore and inhabit each new solar system which holds habitable planets and moons,just as we have done within our home solar system.This will obviously take thousands of years to achieve,and assumes that the human race will not wipe itself out before we accomplish our expansion into the universe around us.

As others have pointed out,there are still manned space programs being carried on by Russia and China.The EU and Japan are also interested,and will slowly come up with innovative designs and systems which will help us continue towards our goal,our future destiny.And the private sector in the United States will more than likely pick up the pace as well.NASA will continue with robotic missions.

It is just depressing to me that we cannot evolve past our primitive inclination to make war and weapons of war.That we remain forced to deal with terrorists and religious,cultural groups which constantly threaten to annihilate one another is extremely sorrowful.The trillions of dollars the world as a whole spends upon weaponry could be used for so much good for all of mankind,not to mention what we could do towards building a magnificent manned space program.My idealism is showing.I am ,and have always been a dreamer.Yet I believe that eventually we will "grow up" and evolve into a rational species that finally resolves itself to ban war.This again assumes that we do not eradicate ourselves first.

I worry about all of the arms dealing that is seeing a rapid increase right now.North Korea ,Iran, and Israel are ready to rumble.Afghanistan and Iraq are using huge quantities of U.S. money to maintain and supply our armed forces.China is not happy that the U.S. has made an arms deal with Taiwan,and Russia has just made a huge arms sale to Libiya.Nuclear proliferation and arms sales are painting a grim picture for the future.


As the eternal optimist and idealistic dreamer,I think that we will eventually overcome our tribal instinct for war and finally realize our potential to achieve positive growth.If I could make it happen this very hour,I would joyously do so.Alas,I know far too well that it may not happen in my lifetime,that it will be quite awhile before we put down our swords and work together as the family of man.

We will eventually build a moon-base,and use it to jump to Mars.From Mars the moons of Saturn and Jupiter look pretty exciting.Then Neptune and Uranus,and outward into our galaxy to the nearest inhabitable solar system we can find.So that even though President Obama has killed the Constellation Program,the desire for human beings to reach out into the universe still remains,and I believe it will eventually be our greatest accomplishment.

 

[menellom]

Re: Obama withdrawals funding for constellation

Why do people keep assuming that just because Obama might scrap the Constellation program, it somehow means the 'death' of the American space program?

NASA isn't getting the axe, the Constellation program will be replaced with a better program, one that actually gets funded, one with clear direction and goals (the VSE outlined under the last administration amounted to "let's go to the Moon... or whatever")

If we stay the course on Constellation/Ares it could be 2016, 2017, 2018 before we're even flying our own spacecraft again, and when we finally do get Ares I up and running it'll fly two... three missions to the ISS, the ISS will be deorbited, and suddenly we find ourselves in 2020 with a rocket that can only make it to LEO and nowhere in LEO to go. Well, then I suppose we'd sit around for another decade waiting for Ares V to finish. Under Constellation we MIGHT make it to the Moon by 2030.

A new program and a new rocket are the right way to go. A Jupiter or Jupiter-like rocket could be flying in 2-3 years instead of 6-8, while NASA will put off landing on the Moon until perhaps 2025, until then we'll have manned lunar orbits, missions to near Earth asteroid, possibly even missions to Venus and Mars.

 

[Windbourne]

Re: Obama withdrawals funding for constellation

....
I worry about all of the arms dealing that is seeing a rapid increase right now.North Korea ,Iran, and Israel are ready to rumble.Afghanistan and Iraq are using huge quantities of U.S. money to maintain and supply our armed forces.China is not happy that the U.S. has made an arms deal with Taiwan,and Russia has just made a huge arms sale to Libiya.Nuclear proliferation and arms sales are painting a grim picture for the future.
....

That is not the the real hot spot.
Watch Indian Ocean over the next 5 years.
China is quietly building up new heavy equipment and troops to the north of India.
That is in addition, to quietly putting up a dam on a main source of water that flows into India and other parts of Asia.
In addition, they are now sending nuclear boomers into the indian ocean off the Indian and Pakistan shores. Apparently, with many many more coming; they are currently cranking out 1-2 new nuclear powered subs YEARLY.
Basically, China is on a MUCH bigger build up than America was pre WWII.
Al Qaeda is in Pakistan goading them to take on India as well as China.
Finally, North Korea, and China are helping Burma to acquire the bomb AND missiles.

This is all in an area that has not had decades to control their passions.

 

[Windbourne]

Re: Obama withdrawals funding for constellation

....
A new program and a new rocket are the right way to go. A Jupiter or Jupiter-like rocket could be flying in 2-3 years instead of 6-8, while NASA will put off landing on the Moon until perhaps 2025, until then we'll have manned lunar orbits, missions to near Earth asteroid, possibly even missions to Venus and Mars.

I think that the west will go for the moon again by 2018. The reason is not because of the gov, but because of private space. They want to go there. It is actually cheaper to be on the moon esp. now that we have found water. That will provide water, air, and initially fuel. It can provide food as well via growing. All that remains is to have housing (bigelow), energy (solar at a stationary position initially. Later we will use a sat that beams power and use ultracaps), and protection (regolith). Right now, many companies are working out the solution for this.

How soon do you think before the real billionaires get in on this?
Money will flow into private space like it did for .com.
The west simply needs to use all the tech that it has.

 

[Windbourne]

Re: So thats it...no more humans in space

... Without a competitive market, how is that supposed to reduce prices over NASA owning and operating the system itself? It seems to me that this is a very bad deal for the American taxpayers that will keep transport costs of people to LEO high. The COTS program was devised under the Bush administration, and the Republicans clearly have ideological, rather than economic, reasons for wanting to privatize another chunk of NASA. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't have its own simple Soyuz-like spacecraft and launcher in the works, so I suppose Obama didn't have many options. It just doesn't seem like good public policy for the government to subsidize the creation of a private monopoly, which it will then depend upon for the provision of a service. NASA needs to cut costs by getting tougher on its contractors, by demanding more competition and cheaper better results. It doesn't seem like the COTS scheme accomplishes that. On other matters, if Obama does go for DIRECT over Constellation, that sounds like an excellent choice which will serve America's space program well.

First, COTs was developed by NASA in the mid 90's. They knew that they had issues with getting sustained adequate funding for NASA programs. COTs was finally funded when Griffin pushed it in 2006.

We are not subsidizing a monopoly. We are starting a multi-company market. It will be small at first, but it will grow quickly.

Finally, it remains to be seen if NASA is pursing DIRECT, OR, will it cut a deal to help create it and buy launches at a fix price from the consortium? I suspect that it will be a COTs type approach for the monster booster. Interestingly, SpaceX may try to get in on that as well.

 

[Moses3]

Re: Obama withdrawals funding for constellation

Using the moon orbit as a lauch to the outer planets is a natural. Having landed on the moon, the next step is mars, jupiter, or even saturn.
An orbiting station, similar to the ISS to support regular rendezvous would logically follow space lab, and the ISS.

Basic building blocks exist, in the aged Shuttle Fleet. Enclosing the payload bays and equiping with solar panels, provisions could be stored and energy produced to leave is lunar orbit. Only docking bays would be necessary to allow interaction and replenishing. Shuttles don't have to land, only shuttle, even back to earth and to the moon.