The exercise is to make it as nearterm as possible, Soyuz, progress, maybe ATV are the only real candidates. Tanker configured Progress already exists. It'd need APAS on the target module, or a small node/PMA/adapter. So the module is launched via EELV, has stabilization of some kind, stay-alive and all that. One Progress meets it soon after achieving orbit, burns for ISS, disengages for burnup. A second Progress shadows, meets the module and brings it within berthing range for the robot arm. Total cost: maybe $500m/module. That includes DeltaIV, two Progress, adapter engineering. <br /><br />If Progress could handle it, that makes a lot of sense. I just like the idea of actual pilots being involved. This is further out, but a stack of Soyuz+Parom+Module+Progress1 would be pretty cool. There are enough Soyuz pads at Baikonur to play like this,which also helps. I thought of the Stretch-Soyuz (no OM, big SM) as well, but wanted to keep the post short. The issues with that: no toilet, limited lifesupport. Stretching the tank shouldn't be to hard. Other candidates include stacks of Fregat or Star68(?) upper stages docked onorbit.<br /><br />Ideally, yes, electric/solar propulsion makes the most long-term sense. What I want is some critical discussion on getting Kibo, Columbus and the PV arrays to ISS, sans Shuttle. The strident STS supporters always hose the discussion when I bring it up. Here's the deal: How do we complete/expand the station if Shuttle doesn't fly again? $20+billion is a lot of money for solutions. <br /><br />The options include: manned tug, unmanned tug, maybe electric tug, and the easiest (IMHO): Reinstalling the European and Japanese equipment in long-duration ATVs, fly, dock and call it done. Final option, already mentioned in thread, is to use TKS vehicle ("FGB").<br /><br />Critique, discuss. Naysayers need not apply.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>