After 2016

The US has no commitment to supply the ISS (or to keep it running) after 2016, and as plans for a lunar base mature, the odds of the US spending money on the ISS diminish.

What will Europe due in manned space after this time? Has there been discussion of it?

I hope they will use the ATV - http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/index.html for manned spacetravel or an other vehicle to the ISS. And join NASA (as a partner) to the moon as well.

I think the ISS is a valuable asset, for the coming years a lot of research can be done. Especially for medical purpose to take one of the .. "many" endless tests waiting to fly into space.

I think the ISS will start to become old by about 2025 or so, when Bigelow Aerospace space stations (or others) will outperform the ISS.. but still there will not be much space property.. so ISS will stay very valuable I think, so I hope my fellow europians will keep using, investing in it for research.

And when no new sections get added (build) and only repairs has to be done, I think ESA has the money and resources to provide their own access to it without the US.

As long as they don't dump it like the Russians did with MIR. That would be simply stupid imo. At the current pace/advancements, it can take decades before we have anything that we can call an infrastructure/property in space.

My view of governments doing this is like governments do anything. Go to your local (what's it called? The local government building where you have to register a child, new address, pick up you id pass and things like that) government and just see how slow things are. At least, here in the Netherlands. It's bureaucratic as it can get. The only reason they can have activities in space is that they control the money of the state. Not because they have great management skills.

I'd like to see in Europe some sort of COTS-like program but not to dot it just as an incentive for entrepreneurs but to some degree, rebuild the structure of governmental space activities. It's not healthy in its current state. (At least ESA kinda looks healthy, but they don't do any big projects) If they can restructure and more work like a business where they have to get at least break-even with their expenses. Thát would be advancement in my opinion.

I've heard that if the US lose interest in the ISS, Russia wants to detach some of its modules, attach a big booster, and do a manned Mars fly-by.

Besides being a pointless exercise and a stunt this would be a terrible waste of an expensive science facility IMO. Also robbing modules from the ISS would be a bad idea and not ideal for such a mission. The Russians havent got a suitable booster or any plans to build one that I've seen either.

I think that by 2016 the privates will have developed and flown transport craft to the ISS for both supplies and crew, so NASA will be able to continue its involvement at a much reduced cost if it wants to. I think that it will continue to send astronauts there as long as its in orbit to carry out experiments for its exploration goals.

I agree. They would be much better off sending a Bigelow module on a Falcon or Russian rocket. It would probably even be cheaper to do that than to use part of the ISS for the same purpose.