[Physicist]

Progress is hands-down cheaper for delivering ISS supplies.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the Shuttle replace Progress. It costs a billion dollars just to send the Shuttle up and down. I was more thinking that since the Shuttle (unmanned) would be hauling ISS modules up there, anyway, the former crew compartment could be packed with supplies. That space could probably hold ten times what fits into a Progress ship (limited to 3000 kg or 6.6 cubic meters).

[Frank_Discussion]

Thanks for the clarification - I did indeed misunderstand you.

A billion to send up a Shuttle? That's an exaggeration of at least $300 million, IIRC. Still damn expensive, though, any way you look at it. It HAS to get cheaper than that!

Don't get me wrong, the NASA way is very expensive. But it is doable, and I think that doing it is a good idea at even the current price. Waiting isn't making it cheaper. As with the Moon, private enterprise will make the money work out, but the federal monies aren't as big a hit in the pocketbook for a government mission as the naysayers would scare us all into believing.

I'm reading "The Martian Race" by Gregory Benford right now, just as a coincidence. The scenario is interesting, and seems to be plausable. I suggest to the list that y'all read it.

[RadioAstronomer]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the Shuttle replace Progress. It costs a billion dollars just to send the Shuttle up and down. I was more thinking that since the Shuttle (unmanned) would be hauling ISS modules up there, anyway, the former crew compartment could be packed with supplies. That space could probably hold ten times what fits into a Progress ship (limited to 3000 kg or 6.6 cubic meters).

I agree!

Big sigh! I lament the defunding of two major projects: The SSC and SSTO.