2028 ISS ?

[seth_381]

Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.

 

[rockett]

Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.

They probably can, updating and uprating equipment.

The real issue is, no one wants to junk a $100B+ investment as quick as NASA was planning in 2015.
http://www.spaceprojects.com/iss/
Not to mention a mass of about 1,040,000+ pounds, hauled up at great expense.
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/index.htm
I can't say I blame them for wanting to maximize that investment.

Also, we have not yet begun to make use of it's full capability, such as a base for constructing lunar and interplanetary spacecraft...

 

[bushuser]

As others have mentioned, with this time frame [and budget pressures], it's time to experiment with growing some food on ISS. This kind of practical exercise is needed to help with long-duration trips to the moon or planets. Even if the first attempt is a rotten failure, the information gleaned will be helpful. If it works, and is sustainable, then a little less cargo has to be sent up to LEO.

 

[EarthlingX]

There are experiments about food growth, and many other biological fields going on :

NASA : Station Science

ESA : Columbus

JAXA : Space Environment Utilization and Space Experiment

Roscosmos : FUNDAMENTAL SPACE STUDIES

S.P. Korolev RSC Energia : Science Research on ISS Russian Segment

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.

Well for one thing NASA doesnt own the ISS so they cant decide to de-orbit it in a unilateral way. its not up to NASA how long the ISS lasts. Anyway, I think the ISS should go as long as it can, if anything it will be a great experiment on materials science. Trying to figure out how the stucture of man made objects survives long term in space is a good experiment in and of itself, never mind all the experiments going on inside of it.

 

[bushuser]

There are experiments about food growth, and many other biological fields going on :

NASA : Station Science

ESA : Columbus

JAXA : Space Environment Utilization and Space Experiment

Roscosmos : FUNDAMENTAL SPACE STUDIES

S.P. Korolev RSC Energia : Science Research on ISS Russian Segment

Well, they are certainly doing some biology, though none of these links relate specifically to growing food for onboard consumption...not even algae or fungi.

 

[EarthlingX]

There are experiments about food growth, and many other biological fields going on :

NASA : Station Science

ESA : Columbus

JAXA : Space Environment Utilization and Space Experiment

Roscosmos : FUNDAMENTAL SPACE STUDIES

S.P. Korolev RSC Energia : Science Research on ISS Russian Segment

Well, they are certainly doing some biology, though none of these links relate specifically to growing food for onboard consumption...not even algae or fungi.

'Growing food' and 'for onboard consumption' are not the same thing. Now they are mostly concerned with the 'growing' part, as you can see, and for 'consumption' they use ferries. They are 'growing food', just not 'for onboard consumption'.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.

They probably can, updating and uprating equipment.

The real issue is, no one wants to junk a $100B+ investment as quick as NASA was planning in 2015.
http://www.spaceprojects.com/iss/
Not to mention a mass of about 1,040,000+ pounds, hauled up at great expense.
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/index.htm
I can't say I blame them for wanting to maximize that investment.

Also, we have not yet begun to make use of it's full capability, such as a base for constructing lunar and interplanetary spacecraft...

I agree with there.

However NASA really needs to push the bounds to how long humans can survive in space. Deep space missions will require humans to live in space for far longer than the 6 months that people are currently staying on the space station. A Mars mission will require at least a year long mission. What we need to do is to experiment with having humans stay longer in space and find ways to counter the adverse effects of the isolation, radiation, and mircogravity.

At the same time we need to push the bounds of self sufficiency and cost effectiveness. We need to design better close-loop life support systems and test them on the station.

 

[halman]

Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.

There are a couple of World War II B-17's flying around today, and several P-51, hundreds of Stearman biplanes, and lord only knows how many antique cars are out there. If you take care of something, and fix stuff as soon as it breaks, if not before, (preventative maintenance,) then things can last a very long time. It is certainly possible to keep the International Space Station active and on-orbit until 2028, and even well beyond that, as long as it is re-boosted on a regular basis. Unfortunately, we put it in a very low orbit, so that the space shuttle could reach it at the orbital inclination it is on.

Because the space shuttle typically relied on the speed acquired by launching to the East, it sacrifices some altitude capability when launching to the the North/Northeast, or whatever the inclination is from Canaveral. Strangely enough, the Russians have never depended upon this small natural bonus, instead building their rockets powerful enough to reach high inclination orbits at higher altitudes, if I remember correctly.

Be that as it may, I would like to see the ISS boosted to a higher altitude, after a few Orbital Transfer Vehicles have been launched, as well as a fully pressurized hanger for them, and a few months worth of kerosene and liquid oxygen. You don't have to worry about boil-off loses with those propellants, I believe, so the tanks could sit in orbit for a while before they are used. The OTV's would meet payloads coming up from Earth, which would just make it into space, and collect the goods for hauling up to higher orbit. OTV's could also be used for placing satellites, even in the Clarke, or geosynchronus orbit, and collect ones that have run out of fuel, or that need repair.

Eventually, we will service such satellites, using some kind of vessel which can maneuver between orbits easily, while moving large amounts of mass. Thus, the components of a deep-space research vessel could be launched to a Low Earth Orbit, say, 160 miles, and then collected by the OTV's and taken to a 450 mile orbit, for instance, for assembly. (In this way, we can lift larger payloads with our existing rockets, or really big payloads with a heavy-lift launch-vehicle, because, the higher the final orbit, the smaller the payload a rocket can carry.) Work such as that will probably not be carried out at pure research stations, because of disruptions caused by operating rockets, radio transmitters, and electric razors. (Will there be cell phones in space?)

If we are to have a real future, we must learn how to maintain structures in space. Protective coatings, magnetic radiation shields, interchangeable parts, redundancy, these are all aspects of the longevity problem. If we build our space stations like we build our cars, than they won't last long. In spite of all the hoopla about going to Mars or to the Moon, space is where a lot of stuff is going to happen, no matter what. We will have to maintain a substantial presence in some orbit(s), which will mean maintaining structures there, perhaps for decades.

 

[kk434]

Keep ISS forever

ISS is quite borring but still a permanent outpost in space, companies are buiding crafts to get there, ESA ATV, japan ATV, for the firsth time we have a permanent space outpost, keep itas long as possible´, 20-30 years, it's already built so just don ditch it in the pacific like MIR.

 

[Valcan]

Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.

There are a couple of World War II B-17's flying around today, and several P-51, hundreds of Stearman biplanes, and lord only knows how many antique cars are out there. If you take care of something, and fix stuff as soon as it breaks, if not before, (preventative maintenance,) then things can last a very long time. It is certainly possible to keep the International Space Station active and on-orbit until 2028, and even well beyond that, as long as it is re-boosted on a regular basis. Unfortunately, we put it in a very low orbit, so that the space shuttle could reach it at the orbital inclination it is on.

Because the space shuttle typically relied on the speed acquired by launching to the East, it sacrifices some altitude capability when launching to the the North/Northeast, or whatever the inclination is from Canaveral. Strangely enough, the Russians have never depended upon this small natural bonus, instead building their rockets powerful enough to reach high inclination orbits at higher altitudes, if I remember correctly.

Be that as it may, I would like to see the ISS boosted to a higher altitude, after a few Orbital Transfer Vehicles have been launched, as well as a fully pressurized hanger for them, and a few months worth of kerosene and liquid oxygen. You don't have to worry about boil-off loses with those propellants, I believe, so the tanks could sit in orbit for a while before they are used. The OTV's would meet payloads coming up from Earth, which would just make it into space, and collect the goods for hauling up to higher orbit. OTV's could also be used for placing satellites, even in the Clarke, or geosynchronus orbit, and collect ones that have run out of fuel, or that need repair.

Eventually, we will service such satellites, using some kind of vessel which can maneuver between orbits easily, while moving large amounts of mass. Thus, the components of a deep-space research vessel could be launched to a Low Earth Orbit, say, 160 miles, and then collected by the OTV's and taken to a 450 mile orbit, for instance, for assembly. (In this way, we can lift larger payloads with our existing rockets, or really big payloads with a heavy-lift launch-vehicle, because, the higher the final orbit, the smaller the payload a rocket can carry.) Work such as that will probably not be carried out at pure research stations, because of disruptions caused by operating rockets, radio transmitters, and electric razors. (Will there be cell phones in space?)

If we are to have a real future, we must learn how to maintain structures in space. Protective coatings, magnetic radiation shields, interchangeable parts, redundancy, these are all aspects of the longevity problem. If we build our space stations like we build our cars, than they won't last long. In spite of all the hoopla about going to Mars or to the Moon, space is where a lot of stuff is going to happen, no matter what. We will have to maintain a substantial presence in some orbit(s), which will mean maintaining structures there, perhaps for decades.

Damn you halman always making sense

 

[vulture4]

Halman makes some excellent points. I remember the pressurized space tug hangar idea from the early 80's. In the early days of the space station program the idea of a termination date, when the "mission" would be "complete" would have been laughable. It was understood that this was the failing of Apollo. The Station was intended to be expandable, modifiable, refurbishable, and productive indefinitely. Launching, retrieving, and servicing satellites, both scientific and commercial, using the space tug was to have been a major part of the work. Ultimately routine fights to the Moon or Mars would depart from the station, as in "2001", though the giant rotating wheel probably isn't needed. Today the ISS is even more vital as the destination for a new generation of fully reusable launch vehicles and spacecraft.

The return to the idea of sending a few people to a spectacular "goal", that would be "achieved" when it was reached, whether the Moon [Bush2], Mars [Bush1, Obama], or an asteroid [Obama], is inexplicable. Doesn't anyone remember what actually happened when we achieved the goal in 1969? By the time of the very next flight, public support had collapsed and people were asking why we were going back, since we had already been there. The idea that we need an asteroid as a goal because "we've already been" to the Moon is absurd. We need sustainable, low-cost, productive human spaceflight as a goal, and a LEO station will always be needed for that. It's the very idea of a new "space spectacular", regardless of its destination, that should be consigned to the waste bin of "been there, done that".

 

[neutrino78x]

It's the very idea of a new "space spectacular", regardless of its destination, that should be consigned to the waste bin of "been there, done that".

That's what Obama is saying with his current space plan!! It is about building a sustained presence in space, and lowering the priority of flag and footprint type missions. Only send NASA astronauts for missions which would actually require them. Everything else, private.

--Brian

 

[orionrider]

The Russian modules have been designed with a much longer lifetime in mind. They obviously did learn from Mir...

According to a 2009 report, RKK Energia is considering methods to remove from the station some modules of the Russian Orbital Segment when the end of mission is reached and use them as a basis for a new station, known as the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex. The modules under consideration for removal from the current ISS include the Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM), currently scheduled to be launched at the end of 2011, with other Russian modules which are currently planned to be attached to the MLM until 2015, although still currently unfunded. Neither the MLM nor any additional modules attached to it would have reached the end of their useful lives in 2016 or 2020. The report presents a statement from an unnamed Russian engineer who believes that, based on the experience from Mir, a thirty-year life should be possible, except for micrometeorite damage, because the Russian modules have been built with on-orbit refurbishment in mind.[129]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... rbit_plans

 

[kk434]

I think the ISS will in the distant future be called "The Great Space Station". The ISS will be the largest station for decades and when it is deorbited(hopefully not too soon) the existing stations will be small one like the proposed Chinese one or Biggalow.

 

[Valcan]

I think the ISS will in the distant future be called "The Great Space Station". The ISS will be the largest station for decades and when it is deorbited(hopefully not too soon) the existing stations will be small one like the proposed Chinese one or Biggalow.

Nah. I thin they will get bigger just maybe lighter per cub' foot of space they provide and larger in general. I think it may be one of the last to be built the way it is. Bigelow moduals currently have better protection plus more space and are lighter.

My self i thin we should just work on upgrading and expanding the ISS. Just add to it in terms of what we can do.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I think space stations should be designed like deep space, spaceships. First you decide what you’re trying to do, and then you build something that will accomplish your goals.

A larger space station is not necessarily better than a small station. It really depends on what the purpose is.

Right now, I am not sure if there is such a need for a space station. What we need is a space ship. One that can act like a space station in LEO (protected) and when needed moved to orbit the Moon, or possibly Mars for a 6 month or 1 year mission to explore and do serious science.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

In my opinion, we need to add a propellant depot to the station so that flights can go from Earth to the station, refuel, then launch to the Moon, asteroids, whatever. And while they are refueling, they can get a little rest on the station or something, kind of a rest stop in space.

 

[pathfinder_01]

In my opinion, we need to add a propellant depot to the station so that flights can go from Earth to the station, refuel, then launch to the Moon, asteroids, whatever. And while they are refueling, they can get a little rest on the station or something, kind of a rest stop in space.

Due to the danger of explosion and leak I don’t see a propellant depot being placed at the ISS. A propellant depot might be man tended and might have some emergency supplies, but I don’t see a propellant depot having a crew or having a place for a crew to rest. It would be as automated as possible to control costs.

I can see the ISS transferring some propellant to a craft say a resident orbital transfer Vehicle or a deep space craft, but perhaps only enough to get the craft safely somewhere else. The ISS could be used to stage a deep space mission, but it would perhaps be best as a place for equipment to be staged and a place for the crew to wait on an earth departure stage.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

Maybe they could have it in a close orbit? Or have it on a tether attached to the station?