NASA needs to go into survivor mode

Are you a survivalist?  Can't say that I am, but having read enough of Chris Laird's stuff, I am of the opinion that it is a good idea to be prepared.  By being prepared, I mean the ability to meet survival situations on your own without expecting nor receiving outside aid.  That's because outside aid may not be available, or if it is, it may come too late to be of use.  I mention the topic in connection with the space program as a way of suggesting that this concept must be adapted to space travel.

It isn't new, and it isn't my idea.  Yet, it is not being used now, nor does it seem likely to be unless something happens.  You can't be a survivalist in terms of space travel if you are always demanding that new rockets be built every time you think of a new mission.  A survivalist meets the situations with what he has available; he cannot expect to wait around for something to be sent to him.  It may never get there.

That is not to say that something could get there.  Just don't predicate everything upon its arrival.  You make do with what you've got.  An implementation of this idea is in situ resourcing in space.

The mastery of the technique of in situ resourcing is going to be mandatory if the space program is ever to get out of low Earth orbit.  The reason is the high cost of launch.  The less that has to come off the Earth, the better.  Ultimately, this is the justification for a Moonbase, or Space Station.  It is the reason for recycling the ET's, which I have been writing about.  Such facilities will reduce the need for launches from Earth.  By doing so, it makes space travel less needful for government assistance and closer to actual commercialization.

A way to dress rehearse in situ resourcing is to recycle the ET's.  If you can't find a way to do that, why bother going up in space at all?  In the end, if this isn't going to be done, the space program is going nowhere, really.  In the end, the space program is needful of a survivalist mentality.  If it is to survive, it had better find a way to use what it has instead of expecting funding as if the funds were inexhaustible.  Here is a way for NASA to show that it can come up with a way to do what hasn't been done before.  What rocket has been converted from one use to another while in space?  The external tank has that potential, but will it ever be used?  Or will NASA or Washington expect a new rocket for every new mission?  But if that is the thinking, circumstances may mean the end of the space program.  Funds are limited, and time is running out.