What's YOUR Vision For Space Exploration?

[menellom]

As Obama's State of the Union Address and the announcement of the new budget approach, it seems like all we can do is pace back and forth, anxiously waiting for the President to announce some kind of decision regarding the future of NASA and the American space program.

While we wait though, I'd be curious to hear the ideas and opinions of people on these forums as to what they think should be the course of the space program. What's your VSE? What would you propose if it were up to you?

You can be as formal or informal, as broad or detailed, as realistic or 'optimistic' as you want.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Maintain the ISS until 2020 and give it all the funding it needs to realize its full potential even if it requires delaying plans for other things.

As far as Ares I & V make Ares V the priority. It is more important for our future plans to have the heavy lift capacity of the Ares V. Continue to develop the Ares I for now and wait to see if commercial alternatives pan out. If they do consider dropping Ares I entirely.

Continue as planned with a moon base, however put more emphasis on making the architecture open like the ISS, so that both private companies as well as other space agencies can participate in the future. Look for international partners including the Russians, the Chinese, the European, and the Indian space agencies to provide equipment and funds for the moon base as we did with the ISS.

Also leave the architecture open to future fuel depots and unmanned resupply craft to once again allow other space agencies as well as private firms to provide services.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

1. Leverage the private sector. Launch more often with more affordable vehicles. Don't discount what may save NASA. SpaceX, Bigelow, Scaled, and a host of others that truly have the capability and the vision only need a good opportunity to show what we as a people are truly capable of. NASA needs to quit whining about their bruised ego and put their budget where it will do the most good. Ares may be a relly great rocket. But it may lead us in the wrong direction. It is time for NASA to let go of the stuff they have already blazed the trail on and focus on the boundaries of the unknown. More than just NASA knows how to build rockets now. We have been there and done that. NASA needs to get their head out of the exhaust cone and look to the stars. I think the private sector is ready to help them do that if they will just let them.

2. Solidify LEO presence by building an in-orbit port. ISS is a fine outpost but I would think we need something more functional and certainly better sheilded considering all the flotsam out there. It must have storage capability for fuel, ships, and cargo. It should have operations and living space for crew, and visitors. The port should serve as the first stop for any mission beyond LEO. Earth ascent/decent vehicles are parked at the port while mission crew transfers to more appropriate vehicles in continuation of their missions. Keep and maintain a fleet of mission transfer vehicles parked at the LEO port. Earth departure should be staged from there.

3. Establish an orbiting moon port. It's function is similar to the one in LEO but its function would be tuned to supporting moon landings, etc. Keep a fleet of moon landers in moon orbit. We do not need to keep dragging new ones up there. Keep and maintain them there.

4. Establish moon bases. The moon bases are placed for scientific and/or commercial purposes. Keep extra fuel at the ports and at moon bases. Don't waste fuel by abandoning it.

5. Establish an orbiting mars port. It's function is similar to the one in LEO and moon orbit. It should be configured for Mars observation first and managing robitic probes launched from that facility. Later, as we become more confident and technically capable, we use that port to manage landings.

Each step reduces the complexity and risk of failure of the next step. Each step allows for redundancy if needed. Each step assumes that we are truly committed to staying in space on a permanent basis. It is also the recognition that staging and managing our exploration from earth is not ideal nor is it within the budget to keep operating that way.

Launch infrastructure into space. Keep and maintain it there with the idea it needs to last. Don't throw it away. We don't have the money to do that. Leverage what budget you do have by not assuming that your purchases are all disposable. Don't rebuild the road every time you go on a road trip! ...and especially don't think about carrying it on your back all the way there and back!!

That is how I would proceed if I had the choice. It's not very fast, it's just better (if you think staying in space and accomplishing anything truly significant in space is a good idea).

 

[Polishguy]

1. First priority is Mars in 10 years. Mars Direct/Semi-Direct are both good ideas. Develop Ares V quickly. We don't need no stinkin' testing. The first manned launch of Saturn V went around the moon, so let's use each of our Ares launches effectively.
2. Kill Orion, kill Ares 1. Contract SpaceX to accelerate the Dragon and Falcon 9 Heavy.
3. Figure out a way to extend Hubble's lifetime, and the lifetime of the ISS.
4. Asteroid mission. Using Dragon capsule (with better heat shield).
5. Manned lunar outpost to develop optical and infra-red observatories on far side. I think we can use Ares V Core Stage as Wet Workshop for this. Launch into LEO, outfit in LEO, and then put on the moon. Instant base.
6. If we absolutely can't continue funding the ISS, let's sell our portion of it to a private company. They'll figure out a use for it.

EDIT: Bring back the X-33 SSTO.

 

[EarthlingX]

1. Global space expansion cooperation.
Countries which don't have their own space capabilities have other resources, like human, or material that can be used, everyone could be part of it. Magic word: standards. It might take longer for some things, it would be messy at parts, but would never stop and it would be cheaper at the end.
2. Use as much living tech as possible to do what's missing. No untested tech, if it can be avoided, try to stick to what is available, try not to invent too much, just do it. Progress towards reusability with what exists, make expandable boosters fly-back boosters, etc. Get some of already funded, politically killed projects back on-line (aero spike, but not the only one);
3. Get rid of Ares 1, ASAP, redirect money to more productive directions, anything would be better;
3. Fuel depots. Essential. This is where to start, if we are serious about it, or it is just another publicity stunt;
4. Get politics out of NASA HSF, forever. Let it finally be run by engineers. Give them budget and stay away;

Where from there ? Everywhere and all over the place, start in the low gravity, to avoid landers, first base on the Moon, do a lot of testing and experimenting, then move on.

Nuclear powered VASIMR, electromagnetic-plasma radiation shielding, ISRU, robotic half autonomous factories, orbital assemblies, garbage collection, that is the first to do.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Well I'm a dreamer so here it goes.

NASA should stop developing rockets and support private companies to develop rockets. Then give them work and money to use their rockets such as supporting ISS and other LEO science and entertainment activities.

NASA should stop developing a Moon base and support private companies to develop a Moon base (both in orbit of the Moon and on the surface). Give them work and money to use a Polar Moon base such as developing ISRU technology, put various telescopes (light, radio, etc...) up there and support the science community to do major science on the far side of the Moon. NASA should help private companies to develop stations in almost all the Lagrange points for both science and entertainment. Stop being stuffy, I know space is dangerous but try and make space fun.

NASA should develop suits, and ground vehicles and make the designs available to private companies. NASA should expand their robotics ships by exploring the Moon, Mars, Jupiter’s satellites, Saturn’s satellites both from orbit and on the surface. Lets find all the water in our solar system (in what ever form), categorize, analyze and bring back samples. NASA should take a serious inventory of the solar system and then share this information with the said private companies that have developed rockets and stations in order to allow private firms to develop these resources. Also find all NEO’s floating around out there and explore them thoroughly (put small unmanned posts on them if possible and lets use them).

NASA should prove or disprove that a space elevator is feasible (if not on Earth, then on the Moon, or on Mars). NASA should prove or disprove that large solar cells can be placed in deep space and energy can be mined from the Sun for use on Earth, in LEO, or on the Moon or on Mars. NASA should prove or disprove that nuclear power is feasible for powering stations or space ships. If feasible, then build it and they will come.

NASA should engage young people with various activities that can bring about a rejuvenation of the youth towards science and engineering. Hire some marketing firms to engage young people, bring about interest (for God’s sake sell yourselves you stuffy buggers).

Basically NASA should act like an icebreaker and leave an easier path for others to follow.

 

[bdewoody]

Nasa doesn't build the hardware. Private companies do the design and construction of every piece of hardware NASA uses. NASA does determine the criteria, the standards and the specific mission goals. NASA also provides the personnel to man the space vehicles and provide ground control. The personnel that maintain the shuttles again are employees of private companies with contracts to provide that service.

My vision is that with NASA's guidence a reuseable ground to LEO relatively inexpensive vehicle that can, regardless of the method of launch, land horizontally on a runway. It doesn't need to be nearly as big as the shuttle and with the reduction in size and complexity would be safer. Whether it's built here in the USA or Europe or even in China or Japan doesn't really matter to me.

For a while the ISS should serve as a way station for missions bound for the moon. The vehicles that take crews to the moon should stay in space. Refueled at the space station from fuel tanks launched into orbit atop whatever HLV gets developed, at least until the moon base can start manufacturing fuel which can then be put into space with a much smaller HLV or maybe even a magnetic sled on rails.

Once we have bases on the moon the vehicles needed for manned or unmanned missions to the rest of the planets can be built there. Meanwhile if we master sustained fusion reactors H3 can be mined on the moon for transport back to earth. If fusion doesn't work out solar cells can beam energy back to earth.

Most of this is contingent on our ability to successfully deal with the major problems facing us back here on earth mainly food, fuel and health without further damage to our environment

 

[KingRaptor]

The space exploration is the nice job.. The union of extraterrestrials will be revealed whether they are biological form.. But do not expect that the extraterrestrials will be the biological things.. They are living but what we called the biology is living is not same for all matters of space.. They are living.. They have such a shape.. They respire in another way.. They have a potential.. They have energy.. they survuve just like our planet survive.. I explain My vision is entirely different.. The space exploration is the real heaven.. My points of today is over..

 

[kd007]

Here is what I would do:
1. Cut the earth sciences.
2. Outsource launches to the ISS to SpaceX.
3. Get NASA back into HUMAN Exploration..

 

[menellom]

LEO
Abandon Ares I, there are simpler and more practical solutions to meeting our low Earth orbit needs than designing a brand new rocket exclusively for that purpose. The Russian Soyuz, the ESA's Ariane 5, and Space X's Falcon 9 rocket (if a heavy variant can be modified to carry NASA's Orion capsule) will handle the LEO taxi service.

ISS
The ISS will be extended through 2020, continuing to serve as an orbital scientific outpost, as well as a platform for future missions beyond LEO and orbital construction.

Heavy Lift
While the Russians, Europeans, and private companies handle low Earth orbit, NASA will focus all its development on getting a heavy lift vehicle (either the Ares V or another design) designed, completed, and tested as quickly as possible. Depending on how quickly an HLV can be completed with NASA's full resources as well as additional funding and the money saved after the retirement of the shuttle, ideal early past-LEO missions could include an intercept and orbit of Apophis during its 2013 flyby and/or the delivery of the James Webb Telescope to the Lagrange 2 Point in 2014. The HLV could also aid in some specific LEO missions such as carrying any remaining ISS modules to orbit, or the transport and installation of the VASIMR prototype.

Lunar
After early past-LEO missions, focus will shift towards the Moon with the specific goal of establishing a permanent or at least long-term ground outpost. The bulk of supplies, equipment, and modules for the habitat would be sent ahead of crewed missions. Lunar sorties would not be exploratory like in the Apollo program, but focused on construction of the habitat. The first few missions would only last a few days, once the habitat is partly operational, small crews will be left to continue construction and conduct research during the interim between missions (several such missions would take place over the course of a few months). Eventually the habitat would take on long term shifts like the ISS, rotations would last a few months. The habitat would be continually added onto over the following years, allowing larger and larger crews.

Beyond
Ideally, by the start of the next decade construction of the lunar habitat would be well underway and plans and preparation for manned missions to locations like Venus and Mars could begin.

 

[menellom]

Continue as planned with a moon base, however put more emphasis on making the architecture open like the ISS, so that both private companies as well as other space agencies can participate in the future. Look for international partners including the Russians, the Chinese, the European, and the Indian space agencies to provide equipment and funds for the moon base as we did with the ISS.

That's something that doesn't get brought up a lot is involving some of the more recent additions to the 'launch capable club' in our plans for space exploration. Okay sure China's not going to be as likely to go for it... they're convinced they'll be landing people on the Moon in the next couple years... but countries like India and Korea would probably be thrilled to be involved in a multinational effort in space.

 

[EarthlingX]

Continue as planned with a moon base, however put more emphasis on making the architecture open like the ISS, so that both private companies as well as other space agencies can participate in the future. Look for international partners including the Russians, the Chinese, the European, and the Indian space agencies to provide equipment and funds for the moon base as we did with the ISS.

That's something that doesn't get brought up a lot is involving some of the more recent additions to the 'launch capable club' in our plans for space exploration. Okay sure China's not going to be as likely to go for it... they're convinced they'll be landing people on the Moon in the next couple years... but countries like India and Korea would probably be thrilled to be involved in a multinational effort in space.

This will sound weird, so sit tight:
What about Kongo ? They have a lot of rare materials and far on the extreme side of an example, and honestly i doubt it, but let me think .. Some equatorial country for launches ? Indonesia ? Brasilia ? UAE ? New Zealand (don't know exactly why, they started their own space program, should be in anyway , no, they are not at the equator ) ? Somebody else ? Every bleeding body ?

Global effort to build a railway to space ?

 

[kelvinzero]

A heavy emphasis on ISRU, long term life support and all the other technologies we actually need to live on other worlds.
This should not be viewed as just a space project. This is the most vital technology we must master even if we merely wish to live sustainably on this world. We don't need to wait for a mission. The first mission is earth.

At least a robotic colony on the moon.
There are two vital ways in which missions to the moon are better than missions to LEO.
(1) There are actual resources beyond just sunlight. Possibly quite useful ones at the pole.
(2) What we put on the moon does not fall down again as soon as we stop pouring money into it. Unlike LEO, constant investment will give as a constantly INCREASING infrastructure.
Apart from that there are a lot of interesting things to have a look at.

Minimise human space flights while increasing man-hours on the ISS.
Human flights vastly increase the risk and dont teach us anything (or very little) that cannot be learnt though cargo flights.
Much better than spending money on sending people up and down would be sending them for longer stays and spending the money saved solving the problems of surviving heathily for multiyear periods in space.

Learn about reusable launchers using unmanned prototypes.
These vehicles are prototypes and cannot be expected to be work horses. Attempting to make them 'cost effective' would mean more reuse and less development of new vehicles.

 

[halman]

Over the years, my desires regarding space exploration have changed. I used to think that building a base on the moon was the most important thing that NASA could do.

Today, I see it this way. There are various goals, to work towards, areas which need improvement, and basic science to enable learning. I consider space exploration to be essential to the survival of the United States, worthy of investment on the order of 50 billion dollars a year. With that, I would begin work in three different regimes;

1,) Earth to orbit

2.) zero gravity

3.) Celestial body exploration

1. Getting from Earth to the other side of the atmosphere is the hardest, most dangerous part of space exploration. Because payloads and passengers must be accelerated from a standing start to 17,500 miles per hour, or 5 miles per SECOND, the energies involved are enormous. We have established how to do this, but we have yet to develop a cheap, easy, and safe way to get into space. This holds up all other advancement in human space exploration. Developing a reusable spacecraft to carry 10 to 15 people to Low Earth Orbit, and return to land on a runway at the launch point, is the single most important goal facing humanity right now. Learning how to do so will make all other off-planet activities easier to accomplish, by making it possible to get people into the space environment easily, routinely, and safely. Until such a system is developed, I would continue flying the space shuttle. I would stop development by NASA of all other launch systems, leaving that to the private sector.

2. What is going to make space exploration a reasonable investment will be profits made from processing materials in zero gravity. We have no idea what is possible in that environment, and learning how to support people in space is essential to any of our plans. It will take people who have spent time in zero g to engineer properly for it, people who have worked in that environment to know what methods are best to try first, and people who can conduct their experiments in person to make the breakthroughs. This means creating and maintaining space stations, servicing them, supplying them, and learning how to make them as self-sufficient as possible. Some of this knowledge will be useful for developing deep space probe ships, where the crews will be in a zero g environment for months, maybe even years at a time. But we will have to build ships and test them with long duration voyages to know for sure.

3. To get the materials that will be processed in the zero gravity factories will require traveling to many different places. The most likely place to start is the closest place, the Moon. But asteroids also may supply raw materials Examining them may be some of the first voyages of long-duration ships. Returning to the Moon will entail developing a shuttle vehicle which can land there and return to Earth orbit, over and over again. Once NASA has perfected this spacecraft, the design should be given to private contractors willing to build and operate them, so that NASA can turn its attention to developing the tools needed to explore other planets. Rovers, portable habitats, and excavating equipment will have to created and tested. A beach head will have to be established, a dug-in, permanent facility that can be used for staging expeditions to various parts of the Moon, which will be dispatched by sub-orbital shuttles.

Establishing a network of relay satellites around Mars would allow the control of several mobile robots at the same time, perhaps with an orbiting supercomputer providing on the spot processing power. This network will also be of use for the first human explorers of Mars, when they arrive.

Space exploration is expensive, and will remain so for some time. If we are going to establish ourselves beyond the confines of this planet, ways to make money in space are going to have to be found. Otherwise, we will see a few brief missions to a couple of places, and then support for space exploration will cease.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Continue as planned with a moon base, however put more emphasis on making the architecture open like the ISS, so that both private companies as well as other space agencies can participate in the future. Look for international partners including the Russians, the Chinese, the European, and the Indian space agencies to provide equipment and funds for the moon base as we did with the ISS.

That's something that doesn't get brought up a lot is involving some of the more recent additions to the 'launch capable club' in our plans for space exploration. Okay sure China's not going to be as likely to go for it... they're convinced they'll be landing people on the Moon in the next couple years... but countries like India and Korea would probably be thrilled to be involved in a multinational effort in space.

China wanted in on the ISS, but they were not allowed to for some reason.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Establishing a network of relay satellites around Mars would allow the control of several mobile robots at the same time, perhaps with an orbiting supercomputer providing on the spot processing power. This network will also be of use for the first human explorers of Mars, when they arrive.

I really like this idea Halman. I think due to a vast distance between Earth and Mars an orbiting super computer that can act as a robotic controller, data collector, etc... will be a very hard project that we can learn much from.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

China wanted in on the ISS, but they were not allowed to for some reason.

I would not allow China in on space projects with us for two reasons.

1. Their space program is a military program.
2. They are not a free country and their record on human rights is dismal. I hate mixing politics with space, but in this case I don’t want them to benefit from a space program and then turn around and use it to further their own goals.

 

[Couerl]

Simple, cheap throwaway robots.. Millions and millions of them, some no bigger than a cell phone and designed to do only one thing, transmit data and then die, but collectively designed to cover a much wider array of missions and on a much larger scale than spirit rover et. al.

 

[halman]

China was not allowed to participate in the International Space Station over concerns about the transfer of technical knowledge to a potential adversary. This attitude is holding back progress, alienating potential partners, and out of date. As the Iranian nuclear situation indicates, technology can be bought or duplicated without serious difficulty. Accepting that we are all in this together is a fundamental first step in making our off-planet exploration efficient and economical. Duplicating other country's capabilities just to show that we are still leaders makes us look stupid, and wastes money.

 

[Valcan]

China was not allowed to participate in the International Space Station over concerns about the transfer of technical knowledge to a potential adversary. This attitude is holding back progress, alienating potential partners, and out of date. As the Iranian nuclear situation indicates, technology can be bought or duplicated without serious difficulty. Accepting that we are all in this together is a fundamental first step in making our off-planet exploration efficient and economical. Duplicating other country's capabilities just to show that we are still leaders makes us look stupid, and wastes money.

In some ways i agree with you in some i dont. Im always leary about any coalition of nations sence all have varying degree's of quality and maintanence and such. We had a few problems with the ISS because of a russian foul up.
As for china or any other well to put it mildly...we such at keeping things secret sometimes. Congress doesnt even leak it pours. Add to that the normal way of chinese reaserch. Find out what america or some such country has. Copy it, Make it cheaper claim it as your own. Most of there space and large rocket tech came from the us and our Ballistic missile tech.

China will do whatever will make it most powerful. They dont give a rats behind about world good will after all they have us to take the blame. So yea dont trust em. Id love to but it just makes no sence. Its like letting a know pediphile babysit your kids.
-------------------------------------------

Mine is like alot of other peoples except i dont think we should worry about mars colonies till we have a good working shipyard in orbit and mining ops going.

And i agree get nasa out of launching rockets atleast the small to medium ones plenty of US companies alone can do that.

Also i think we need to get more into building general utility drones for work in orbit. This could help vastly in industry in orbit.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Most of there space and large rocket tech came from the us and our Ballistic missile tech.

Well actually they copied the Russians Soyuz system. But I get your point.

 

[Brue]

For a while the ISS should serve as a way station for missions bound for the moon. The vehicles that take crews to the moon should stay in space. Refueled at the space station from fuel tanks launched into orbit atop whatever HLV gets developed, at least until the moon base can start manufacturing fuel which can then be put into space with a much smaller HLV or maybe even a magnetic sled on rails.

I have wondered about this for a long time... Why are we constantly re-creating the wheel of getting cargo and humans from earth instead of using ISS as a platform for exploration? We have gotten very good at getting cargo from Earth to ISS. Why not re-use this capability?

This could be an entire field in and of itself.. 'The cheapest way to get cargo and humans from earth to ISS'. Fuel, food, etc could be sent up in non-human-rated rockets, making the overall cost even lower.

Then, you wouldn't have to constantly re-spend the money to build and launch a vehicle (along with all fuel, etc necessary to go to the destination) to LEO and beyond. The vehicle would already BE in LEO. The fuel, supplies, etc, would launched on inexpensive cargo-rated vehicles up to ISS. And then the only supplies you need on the vehicle launching humans to ISS is the supplies to get them there.

Granted, the ISS wasn't designed to be a 'base of operations' for future spaceflight, but why not expand the $100 BILLION station instead of scrapping it in 10 years? Use it as base for future operations.

Building on that idea of re-using ISS as a 'base of operations' and re-using technology that we've been playing with for years... We could put another station in orbit around the moon (using technologies and knowledge we gained from ISS), then we could create a ship that went from station-to-station. This ship would, again, be re-usable, both in day-to-day function and design. We could then 'copy' this configuration to other places that we want to investigate with a human presence...

The process would be 'put a station in orbit, transfer humans from ISS to Moon-Station, or Mars-Station, or Wherever-Station. The ship to go from station-to-station, may not have to be all that different, except for changes in fuel capacity/size because of the longer journey (may be more, I will admin that I don't know all of the details here), but this ship would not have to worry at all about landing and launching from the object being explored. It would ONLY focus on going from station-to-station.

Finally, you could build ships that solely focus on landing and launching from that body we're exploring, and possibly re-use the knowledge we have about going from earth-to-LEO, possibly using other technologies if the gravity of that body permits (Launching from Moon is cheaper than launching from earth, for example).

All of this focuses on re-using technology and not building a new rocket to leave from earth for every new place we explore.

Anyway, that's my vision for how things should play out. It may not actually happen this way (and probably won't), but it makes sense to me. Reuse, reuse, reuse! Reuse both ideas AND hardware whenever possible.

 

[tampaDreamer]

If you're going to mars, put a cycler up there. Best idea I've heard in a while. Why go once when you can go regularly?

 

[docm]

1. get multiple LEO taxi's in operation, winged and capsule. Redundancy is good.

2. enable LEO and L-point refueling ASAP, both small scale (end-of-life Dragons etc. with tanks) and large (tanked Sundancers or maybe Galaxies come to mind, but Sundancers have the power bus). Advantage for Bigelow? Better micro-meteoroid protection than metal.

3. prioritize development of VASIMR and at least one other plasma drive, perhaps HDLT, to megawatt class in a COTS like program, and build reactors for them. Time to get a real deep space drive kiddies.

3. 2 lifters: 40-70 mt and 100+ mt. Do a COTS. Direct? Sure. Multiple common core SpaceX with RS-84 derived engines? Sure. Big Atlas V? Sure, but likely more $$. Just get off the damned mark and DO IT.

4. BLEO versions of Orion Lite and Dragon, or their follow-ons.

5. VASIMR TUG. 'nuff said. Add a nuclear-optical converter to do long distance transfers (low level nuke emissions in one layer drives a fluorescence layer which then drives a solar collector layer - do it right and they can be rolled up for compactness).

6. Do a real exploration of Bigelows landable base technique. This could save a ton of money and effort if it's workable.

7. once the infrastructure is in place don't be afraid to mate an RV up to a Sundancer, a hub and improved power module (chemical + a plasma drive when they're ready) and use it for BLEO missions. If we're building all these pieces use 'em together.

I'm beginning to think NASA should be a combination of COTS-style facilitator of commercial services and Space FAA when it comes to these subjects.

When all those administrators and engineers at NASA, and the congressmen, get a company vehicle do they drive or ride in a government designed box contracted out for manufacture like Constellation? Hell no, they go to a commercial outfit and buy which ever vehicle with 4 wheels with 4-8 seats will do the job, same as we do. It's long past time LEO and near-BLEO rides were handled the same way, but with due caution and diligence to be sure.

 

[rockett]

Bravo documentarian. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, had space taxis years ago. Use the ISS for a space BASE to do USEFUL stuff YEARS ago instead of playing roundy round games and lifting every mission custom made from the dirt every time.

For instance (hypothetically anyway, haven't done the research in detail):
1. Could have shipped the Hubble pieces UPS to the ISS.
2. Attached them to a taxi with the crew.
3. Made transfer orbits.
4. Made the fix.
5. Back to the ISS.

Low powered thruster on a Bigalo balloon would have been ideal...