1. We can leave things at Status Quo and hope the Russians don't bite us in the ass when the Shuttle is decommissioned.

2. Accelerate the Constellation Program while keeping the Shuttle in service. The expense of thsi option is the fact that the Constellation will use the existing Shuttle Launch facilities and that in order for Constellation to use those, they will have to be reconfigured for Ares I and Ares V. Most of the expense would have to be to construct new launch pads for Ares while keeping 39A and 39B in operation for Shuttle Missions.

3. Abandon our "go-it-alone" approach and get with our European partners to develop their ATV into a Crew Return Vehicle. We might be able to use the Orion capsule. All that would be required is to intergrate the two. However, this might prove to be impossible since one would need lower level access to the ATV Cargo area through the bottom of the capsule, thus requiring the designers of the capsule to start from scratch.

It might be noted here that the Europeans are reaching a milestone in their decision process on the ATV late this year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93728802

This would be a perfect time to approach them. The other thing to mention is that not only are the Russians participating in the development of the ATV upgrade, our Japanese partners are participating as well. We could do well to join all the partners in upgrading the ATV and make access to the ISS truly International.

From my point of view abandoning the space station is not a wise option. After such an investment, I could not see the political will existing for another significant investment in space like the ISS. It is in more likelihood that abandoning the ISS would be seen as caving into the Russians, leaving them with a truly wonderful piece of hardware. With our European partners suitably brought to heel by the fact that most of their heating oil and Natural gas comes from Russia (they only need turn off the tap in the dead of winter to prove that point) the ISS could be maintained and even expanded. Eventually we would be shut out even though we provided most of the money, hardware and construction personnel to this facility. Political will for continued funding of the manned space program would evaporate. Abandoning the ISS would truly mean that America would abandon her space program and that is something that should not be allowed to happen. The Space Program is truly a political animal and as such is governed by those rules. Private industry is not at present inclined to either fund or supply access to space without a major government investment. Once that ball is rolling though, it is likely it would continue. You have the one off's like Virgin Galactic which is nice, but you have to have a place to go and do things and that is what the ISS is for.

Trust me. The cost of rocket fuel that would have to be lofted in order to move the ISS to a lower inclination orbit would be more than the cost of a brand new station. The old Skylab had about 10,000 cubic feet of lebensraum compared to the ISS's 15,000 cubic feet. Indeed, a properly designed new station would have more usable volume than the ISS with a single launch using the proposed Ares V rocket.

The ISS is the boondoggle the boondoggle to end all boondoggles. It would be no loss to NASA to just walk away.

You mentioned above that the "fundamental problem with the ISS is the 54 degree inclination of it's orbit. That takes a lot of extra rocket fuel to reach the ISS from Cape Canaveral or equatorial launch sites."

Can't the ISS be brought into an orbit with smaler inclination? It would be a once-only affair.

NASA is scheduled to defund the ISS after 2016. Yet I agree would be a shame to see it crash and burn. So we give them the tech specs and owners manuals for those fancy American-made toilets and such so that they can fix such things themselves.

a meeting place for international symposia
a maximum security prison
a rehab hospital for overweight
a film-studio for special effects
an aerospace museum
a restaurant ("at the End of the Universe")
a spacy cemetery
a house of pleasure
a clubhouse for spaceflight hobbyist
a gymnasium for microgravity sports

The long term goal is what is really worth pursuing. The sniping, negative comments will only keep humankind from reaching its full potential.

I don't mind the US getting $30 billion from Russia to build another more useful Space Station. However, once the Russians run out of money, and show once again their lack of expertise in keeping a space station in orbit, I will miss seeing the ISS pass overhead, but will eagerly look forward to its spectacular plummeting firely death into Planet Earth.

–Oh, you must mean Medvedev, yeah, he's like a kid in a way.

Why is most likely because some folks feel the ISS should be a bigger priority than the moon…. which is silly.
Going back to the moon and preparing for mars are the two biggest missions going. Replacing the ISS in function would be a trivial affair in comparison.

If it came to a choice, drop the ISS in the sea and continue reaching for the moon.

Amen to that!

sOI must be Vladimir Putin's retarded pot smoking kid.

Extend the shuttle.

(1) Keep the shuttle going: but that's really a step backwards.

(2) Start a crash program to get the Ares rockets up and running: but that's going to require Congress to pony up many more billions of $.

(3) Just wing it: let's hope the Russians don't humiliate us too much.

(4) Preemptively withdraw from the ISS before the Russians effectively kick us out (my favorite): Why not? Sure we've spent $100 billion on the place. But we've already learned most of the lessons that are to be learned from the ISS. Let's offer to sell the US components for something like $30 billion payable over ten years at 0% interest. Russia is flush with cash for once, they can afford it.

Then we take that $3 billion per year plus the billions we save from our ongoing commitments to the ISS and use it to develop a brand new space station to be placed in a low inclination orbit that would actually be useful as a life boat for missions to the Moon and beyond.

The fundamental problem with the ISS is the 54 degree inclination of it's orbit. That takes a lot of extra rocket fuel to reach the ISS from Cape Canaveral or equatorial launch sites. Retreat to the ISS was never an option for the Columbia crew because the delta-v required was just too much.

Bottom line: the US and Russian space programs need to get divorced. It was a dysfunctional relationship from the very beginning of Apollo-Soyuz mission. The resultant codependency has prevented both the Russian and US space programs from being where they should be in the 21st century. As in any divorce, we need to figure out who gets the house. Since the 54 degree orbit is basically a "Russian" orbit, it's natural that they should get it; but the US should be compensated somewhat for their share of the asset. Better an amicable separation sooner rather than an acrimonious split later on.

The fall of US, then US puppy EU and the rising of Russia, China and India. Economically, gepolitically & what interests us here, spatially.

The ISS/Space access issue is too bad for science & US population interest's in space though. That's what you get for having impulsive mentally-ill rednecks falcons at the whitehouse.

Since now the "International" Space Station was merely driven bi-national. I guess you missed to inspire less questionable partners and to motivate them to participate equitably.

Just recently, the Europeans showed that they can do an excellent service for the ISS when boosting her with the ATV. The European and Japanese space industries whould have been glad if they had obtained some orders, while you gave the opportunities to the Russians. And because the Russians would think twice to intimidate several partners at once, the active involvement of other partners would stabilize the Russian attitude towards the ISS.

It was a fault not to inspire the Europeans.