Can someone explain to me why they are planning to shut down the ISS in just a few years? Billions and billions spent on it, so why shut it down? Am I missing something?
- Status
I think that is just it -- billions and billions spent, yet no major industrial or scientific breakthroughs made as a result of experiments there, at least not to my knowledge. Perhaps you know of some major advances that have been made as a result of experiments done there? I strongly support the idea of industrial space stations that make things in zerogravity which cannot be made on Earth! 
But a government space station doesn't serve that purpose, and can't, because you need more room than a few square meters to make a factory.
But a government space station doesn't serve that purpose, and can't, because you need more room than a few square meters to make a factory.I'm still mad that we lost Skylab. The original plan was to have the space shuttle boost it to a higher orbit. But that's back when the shuttle was expected to start flying in 1978. I'll be mad as hell if they abandon the space station.
ISS is not a permanent colony in space. It is a technology demonstrator and has served it's purpose very well. We know now that we can assemble and maintain large facilities in space by international operators.
We need this info and abilities, should we ever want to go someplace else. Give us the funding and the order, and we will build the next station on Mars orbit to serve as a base for human Mars exploration.
We need this info and abilities, should we ever want to go someplace else. Give us the funding and the order, and we will build the next station on Mars orbit to serve as a base for human Mars exploration.
When the governments and scientists are tired of it why not offer to rent it to a commercial outfit who can then add those inflatable modules. It should make a great tourist destination for those with 10 million or so dollars to spend.
Someone needs to do something with this behemoth it’s sucking the life out of NASA and it is looking like it will continue to do so until at least 2020.
If the Augustine commission is so keen on commercializing space why don’t they offer the option to commercialize the ISS?
If the Augustine commission is so keen on commercializing space why don’t they offer the option to commercialize the ISS?
jim48":2gp0byyn said:
Because it costs billions and billions to operate. In effect, every year that ISS operates puts off by a year the ability to do anything else -- fly to NEOs, return to the Moon, land on Mars.
jakethesnake":276zhv49 said:
Its too expensive to operate. It is generally assumed that all the other international partners combined cannot afford to keep ISS flying without the US, and you don't see a lot of organizations standing in line and willing to pay for access to ISS today. I suspect something akin to a Bigelow Sundancer or SpaceX DragonLab will be a less expensive option for most organizations.
For various political reasons, ISS will probably be kept operating until 2020.
radarredux,
That is the obvious conclusion that everyone seems to be coming to, and it look as if this elephant is going to be around for awhile eating every dollar in site!
That is the obvious conclusion that everyone seems to be coming to, and it look as if this elephant is going to be around for awhile eating every dollar in site!
^^^^^^-----what he said.
A fully configured Bigelow station could be larger, much larger, than ISS in habitable volume and cost less to operate. NASA's tech originally, but once again abandoned before its potential was realized. Combined with DragonLab, Dragon crew and Orion Lite (or whatever it ends up being called) a much more sustainable model could be in the offing.
The one thing I hear is that a Bigelow station would have less power available than ISS because of the latters huge solar panels. On the other hand; how much of ISS's larger power capacity is used to run outdated and energy inefficient hardware, not to mention heating/cooling a tin can structure that must be less well insulated than a Bigelow module with 16" thick walls that by their nature should be excellent insulators?
That the VASIMR testbed will have to run in burst mode, recharging its batteries off the ISS after each shot, indicates to me the available margin is tight to begin with.
A fully configured Bigelow station could be larger, much larger, than ISS in habitable volume and cost less to operate. NASA's tech originally, but once again abandoned before its potential was realized. Combined with DragonLab, Dragon crew and Orion Lite (or whatever it ends up being called) a much more sustainable model could be in the offing.
The one thing I hear is that a Bigelow station would have less power available than ISS because of the latters huge solar panels. On the other hand; how much of ISS's larger power capacity is used to run outdated and energy inefficient hardware, not to mention heating/cooling a tin can structure that must be less well insulated than a Bigelow module with 16" thick walls that by their nature should be excellent insulators?
That the VASIMR testbed will have to run in burst mode, recharging its batteries off the ISS after each shot, indicates to me the available margin is tight to begin with.
radarredux":16yrg0yh said:
The Augustine Commission's Summary Report just came out, and two of the finding at the end relevant to this discussion are:
"Extending the International Space Station: The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of ISS life. Not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships."
and
"Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline."
The ISS is going to be expensive to maintain, but the items that make maintenance so expensive are common to all long duration human spaceflight. The purpose of the ISS is to solve them.
The single most expensive maintenance cost to my knowledge is the need to launch regular resupply missions, in particular for water (for both drinking and oxygen generation). The urine recycling system already onboard will make a huge dent in the amount of water that needs to be ferried up. NASA is also working on a device to recycle waste CO2 into oxygen, which will be another jump forward. They're also working on ways to reduce the cost of launching resupply missions, which is one of the goals behind Orion.
As for scientific work, of course it hasn't produced any major breakthroughs yet. It's still under construction and the station's largest lab, Kibo, wasn't finished until a few months ago. (Who out there expects a major multi-billion-dollar laboratory to be producing valuable science before it's even finished being built?) But we already have had engineering breakthroughs, like the urine processing system and the experience performing large-scale construction in Earth orbit.
The single most expensive maintenance cost to my knowledge is the need to launch regular resupply missions, in particular for water (for both drinking and oxygen generation). The urine recycling system already onboard will make a huge dent in the amount of water that needs to be ferried up. NASA is also working on a device to recycle waste CO2 into oxygen, which will be another jump forward. They're also working on ways to reduce the cost of launching resupply missions, which is one of the goals behind Orion.
As for scientific work, of course it hasn't produced any major breakthroughs yet. It's still under construction and the station's largest lab, Kibo, wasn't finished until a few months ago. (Who out there expects a major multi-billion-dollar laboratory to be producing valuable science before it's even finished being built?) But we already have had engineering breakthroughs, like the urine processing system and the experience performing large-scale construction in Earth orbit.
"As for scientific work, of course it hasn't produced any major breakthroughs yet. It's still under construction and the station's largest lab, Kibo, wasn't finished until a few months ago. (Who out there expects a major multi-billion-dollar laboratory to be producing valuable science before it's even finished being built?) But we already have had engineering breakthroughs, like the urine processing system and the experience performing large-scale construction in Earth orbit."
What about the research already in progress to develope a samonella vaccine? This could also lead to many types of vaccines by virtue of the genetic decoding techniques that the current research may lead to! What about research into flame propagation that was ongoing on board Columbia before its crash? Ninety-five percent of the data was downlinked to Earth. So what? Indications are that the research may lead to improved designs for office and highrise building sprinkler systems? "Personal Diety", people! Basic research takes time! And, as was pointed out, assemlby of the ISS hasn't even been completed! And, yet we still have some important results that may be developed into great benefit.
But, there is a more important issue. President Obama gave an inspirational speech to students today. He should follow it up by giving youngsters a frontier to go to, just as our ancestors pushed the American frontier back in the 19th Century! We need the High Frontier! The Augustine Report gives plenty of options. Now is the time for this country to put its money where its mouth is!
Ad LEO! AD LUNA! AD ARES! AD ASTRA!
What about the research already in progress to develope a samonella vaccine? This could also lead to many types of vaccines by virtue of the genetic decoding techniques that the current research may lead to! What about research into flame propagation that was ongoing on board Columbia before its crash? Ninety-five percent of the data was downlinked to Earth. So what? Indications are that the research may lead to improved designs for office and highrise building sprinkler systems? "Personal Diety", people! Basic research takes time! And, as was pointed out, assemlby of the ISS hasn't even been completed! And, yet we still have some important results that may be developed into great benefit.
But, there is a more important issue. President Obama gave an inspirational speech to students today. He should follow it up by giving youngsters a frontier to go to, just as our ancestors pushed the American frontier back in the 19th Century! We need the High Frontier! The Augustine Report gives plenty of options. Now is the time for this country to put its money where its mouth is!
Ad LEO! AD LUNA! AD ARES! AD ASTRA!
I feel as though the ISS should be scraped.
I thought about this for awhile and was really opposed to the scraping up until recently, but it is wayy to much of a price tag to keep in operation. The exiting ISS will free up alot of money for NASA's budget. We could always commercialize the ISS and paint it like a giant can of pepsi, mountain dew, ect to cover the costs, but that would probably be extremely difficult to pull off already in space :lol:
Newer and more efficient technologies exist now which will allow for a huge reduction of costs. I feel as though what we should do is recycle certain parts on the ISS and add them to the future Bigelow Inflatable stations or whatever prototypes we end up using. The solar arrays could be recycled with a host of other parts from the existing station which would reduce costs greatly. My only problem with this is who is to say that much more efficient and cheaper solar cells, as well as other components, wont be available by 2020? Most likely there will be.
The big thing in space is cutting edge technology. Newer technology allows for more processing, experiments, and understanding of the space environment. Something we are going to need if we ever hope to break the reigns of LEO and venture out into space, asteroids, other planets, and beyond.
I thought about this for awhile and was really opposed to the scraping up until recently, but it is wayy to much of a price tag to keep in operation. The exiting ISS will free up alot of money for NASA's budget. We could always commercialize the ISS and paint it like a giant can of pepsi, mountain dew, ect to cover the costs, but that would probably be extremely difficult to pull off already in space :lol:
Newer and more efficient technologies exist now which will allow for a huge reduction of costs. I feel as though what we should do is recycle certain parts on the ISS and add them to the future Bigelow Inflatable stations or whatever prototypes we end up using. The solar arrays could be recycled with a host of other parts from the existing station which would reduce costs greatly. My only problem with this is who is to say that much more efficient and cheaper solar cells, as well as other components, wont be available by 2020? Most likely there will be.
The big thing in space is cutting edge technology. Newer technology allows for more processing, experiments, and understanding of the space environment. Something we are going to need if we ever hope to break the reigns of LEO and venture out into space, asteroids, other planets, and beyond.
The Augustine commission makes a good point however, that if we scrap the ISS that early, it will make it hard to get other countries to participate in future cooperative space endeavors because they will have little assurance that we're not going to bail on whatever the next project is before there is ample time to make discoveries that will represent a return on investment.
May someone post a link to a diagram of bigelows inflatable habitat modules, i can't find them on the site really. Or you could explain how they work.
I'm going to go the Augustine commission one better: Decommissioning the ISS anytime before 2020 will set the "we spend too much money in space" hounds howling to cut the *rest* of NASA's budget, on account of we won't have anyplace to go that we have the technology to get to.
Yes, it was expensive to build. Yes, it'll be somewhat expensive to maintain. But we've already *done* the hard work of lifting all the pieces out of the gravity well and sticking them together. We might as well get some use out of it. And in the meantime, it'll give NASA and the commercial spacecos someplace to aim for.
That said, I believe that the Ares/Orion stack is a boondoggle that should be strangled in the cradle. I kind of like the "heavy lift side-mount" design I've seen as a possible Shuttle replacement - no more problems with foam hitting heat shields - and the work being done by the DIRECT team.
And I also believe that NASA should open up a docking port for a Bigelow module or two, and figure out how to reuse External Tanks as habitats and orbital refueling depots.
But in the short term, let's not Proxmire the ISS.
Yes, it was expensive to build. Yes, it'll be somewhat expensive to maintain. But we've already *done* the hard work of lifting all the pieces out of the gravity well and sticking them together. We might as well get some use out of it. And in the meantime, it'll give NASA and the commercial spacecos someplace to aim for.
That said, I believe that the Ares/Orion stack is a boondoggle that should be strangled in the cradle. I kind of like the "heavy lift side-mount" design I've seen as a possible Shuttle replacement - no more problems with foam hitting heat shields - and the work being done by the DIRECT team.
And I also believe that NASA should open up a docking port for a Bigelow module or two, and figure out how to reuse External Tanks as habitats and orbital refueling depots.
But in the short term, let's not Proxmire the ISS.
Just a thought:
Instead of mothballing it or allowing it to desintegrate...
Why not pass it down or rent it to private enterprise thus keeping the ISS alive?
We will have absolutely nothing to loose.
Maybe private enterprise and American ingenuity will be interested.
As I said before... this is just a thought.
-- macaronte
Instead of mothballing it or allowing it to desintegrate...
Why not pass it down or rent it to private enterprise thus keeping the ISS alive?
We will have absolutely nothing to loose.
Maybe private enterprise and American ingenuity will be interested.
As I said before... this is just a thought.
-- macaronte
CosmicTrader":3ivt3koi said:
Exactly. Putting mass on orbit is the expensive part. Throwing away things we put up seems stunningly ludicrous, especially massive things that could potentially be reused when we have better tools and orbital construction techniques.
Just to blue-sky this a bit, I'd think commissioning a booster package that could be attached to the ISS would be well worth the effort and expense as an alternative to dumping ISS in the Pacific. Push the mass to a much higher orbit and park it there for the duration of any hiatus. Mass is mass, and perhaps we could sell the derelict to a commercial spaceco to refit on orbit at some later date. I imagine someone in fifty years might love the opportunity to buy up a whole bunch of airtight cylinders they could clean out and reconfigure, already up there. If we're smart, we can use even a derelict ISS with its old, hopefully inferior technology later on as a further orbital construction/reconstruction training tool for ourselves, by taking pieces off it, refurbishing or adding to them, and re-using them. If we're really lazy and shortsighted, we can at least sell our modules to the Chinese, who'd probably jump at the chance to use them. But dumping it in the ocean is beyond lazy; it seems criminally wasteful and deeply stupid.
Can anyone imagine where we would be as far as our knowledge of the universe if we had scrapped the Hubble Space Telescope after five or six years? We need to leave the ISS up there and continue to use it until such time that it starts to nickle and dime us to death, like the Soviet Union did with the Mir Space Station. They got more than their money's worth out of Mir by doing that. After that we could do what Istvan suggested and place it into a higher orbit but use it as a test bed for nano-machine technologies. Even as a derelic it can still be useful. As long as it is in a higher enough orbit, the derelic would no longer nickle and dime us anymore.
How about this for a Bon Voyage. Why not at the end of its mission we attach some large rockets to it and launch it out of orbit into deep space. Use it as a mother of all Probes. We could easily attach sensors more cameras manuvering thrusters to it. Like someone siad earlier, the hard part is already done. Cause this Bohemoth is up there. Load that thing up with a nuclear reactor to keep it powered. Im doubtfull the solar panels will do much good a long ways out but what do i know. I mean heck once its outta earths gravity and has no people on it the main exspence would be paying some computer geek to sit and fly the darn thing. We could go one step further and attach the Hubble Telescope to it. Install a bunch of redundent back up software/hardware in the station while useing the stations power to power the telescope from a large distance. We could once in a while turn it on Earth to test therioies on what to look for in sigantures of like from a distance. Ya there are some challenges but dont just toss this equipment away. Call it a time capsule or something for latter generation to retrieve...lol
ok i gave my ideas....FYI if this idea comes to life i wanna be the computer geeek flying it. LOL
ok i gave my ideas....FYI if this idea comes to life i wanna be the computer geeek flying it. LOL
Here's an idea. Take HALF of the TRILLION dollars they want to spend on a healthcare bill that no one wants and give it to NASA instead. It's my money and I say I would much rather give it to NASA than let Obama DISTRIBUTE it out to his followers. 500 billion dollars and NASA could build hospitals on the moon!
jakethesnake":x6x3w5cd said:
Exactly how I feel!!! "+1"
I think that is a good idea. Space tourism. Perhaps non-millionaires will eventually be able to visit!
I just don't think the station is going to produce enough bang for the buck. I would much rather see constelation program go forward. But Obama's going to cancel the moon program just as sure as 'God made little green apples'. I would've thought learning to use Lunar resourses (living off the land) would be the next logical step, for a number of good reasons. The way we're headed now, by 2020 instead of having bases at the poles of the moon, half of us will be in welfare lines and the other half welfare administrators.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Shapiro time delay is caused by Refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.
- Started by Marvas
- Replies: 0
-
Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 73
-
Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 32
-
-
James Webb Space Telescope sees Orion Nebula in a stunning new light (images)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Warp drives' may actually be possible someday, new study suggests
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 33
-
Our Solar System and Life Out There- Started by arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.
- Replies: 22
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram