Close Space Station?

[mcamelyne]

For all you penny pinchers it must really kill you to continue funding what you see as a great white elephant. The station cost 60 billion to build and 3 billion a year to operate. That's pretty good economics. As for NASA's budget, what a joke. The US is spending 60 billion per year in Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously think that is money well spent? The entire US Govt has got its head up its .... when it comes to spending priorities. The science community should dig its heals in and just say no. Divert 10 billion of the Afghan war money to NASA and we will be on the moon by 2018.

The science community needs to stop accepting crumbs and fight for real dollars. The Augustine Commission didn't go the next step and suggest that the operations of the ISS be privatized as well. I bet it could be done for less than 2 billion a year. That would be the smart thing to do. Instead NASA is a jobs program. It always has been and it always will be.

If the ISS is going to produce commercial science then let the commercial guys manage it. Hey, it could even turn a profit.

 

[nmgraywiz]

Stupidity!!!! it's the only possible reason that anyone is even TALKING about closing down the space station now that we've finally got it almost complete!!!! Granted.. maybe you can't manufacture Cars in space with ity, but then again, THATSNOT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR!!! Jezz people.. keep your eye on the ball here... The spacestation was primarly desigened to learn more about the Human condition in a weightless environment!!! Anyone who says we've not learned anything from the station is either Stupid or in a constant state of Denial!!!! You've had to be under a rock to not have noticed the things that have come out of spacestation.. We've perfected Spacewalking for service and repair of things.. We've created some of the best and most perfect research tools for learning about and engineering cancer treatments, as well as a host of other ailments.. Oh sure.. we've not got a cure for cancer, but then again the medical community is not Interested in a Cure!!! They want to be able to TREAT a condition, not cure it.. how can anyone make any money if they cure every disease there is.. the medical profession would go broke.. so they just do just enough to keep it at bay, and keep the money rolling in.. however, I Digress.. that's medical, no space.. but anyway.. yeah.. as to research into the human body during weightlessness!!! we've written whole chapters in the cause and effects, and even developed some pretty ingenious way so keeping the body fit for extended periods.. Also something we need to know how to do so we can travel to the moon and mars and ever have any hope of astronauts surviing on mars once they reach it after an extended trip... Internation Co-Operation!!! TOTALLY invaluable lessons learned in working together.. MY GOD!!! THE US AND RUSSIA!!! CO-OPERATING IN SPACE!!!! 30 years ago, people would have called me insane if I would have said any such thing!!! yet, here it is.. There are many more things that can and will come of the space station.. all we need is the will and financing to use it..
Congress or the current administration might want to scrap it because you can't possibly have someone elses baby do good things, if it's not your own creation!!! Politics.. stupidity.. (sorry.. same meaning there, I"m being a bit duplicitous..) Anyway.. Politics needs to get it's dirty hands OUT of the Human Spaceflight arena.. Commercial enterprises need to grab their respective genitalia and purchase the station if they plan to scrap it.. and show governments how things are done!!! EVERYONE needs to call their congressman, and senators, (and others around the world need to do the same to their own legislators... ) The People MUST have what we are paying for.. No more stupid talk of canceling the most amazing and monumental undertaking of a collective planet earth, and tossing it back to earth!!! Australia.. watch out.. they may be sending this one your way too..

CALL, WRITE, AND E-mail everyone!!! THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to happen.. Too much waste is precisely what has gotten us into our global predicament already. This Ends Now!!

<stepping off of soap box now>

Ok.. ummm.. No.. it should not be scrapped.. Now is the time for commercial enterprises to get moving and buy up governments toss outs.. Spent rocket bodies whould be collected, and be used as raw materials to build our next civilian endevors.. My god.. we spend the money to get all that stuff up there.. why let it all fall down.. GO GET IT.. put it to use.. SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and a few others are trying to show us the way.. let's listen..

Have fun, Enjoy life.. and as always.. Live Long and Prosper!!

L8

The Gray Wizard
(aka: Matt)

 

[marsbug]

As well as a multitude of experiments on basic physics, industrially usefull materials (like colloids and magnetic fluids) materials research for future use in satellites, protien crystal growth (directly contributiing to development of a host of new drugs), human and animal physiology and psychology, what role gravity has in the development of fetuses, and the famous salmonella experiment, it seems suberbug vaccine research can also be helped by microgravity experiments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/

There is a lot of good science being done on the ISS, and I'll be very disapointed if it gets scuttled in 2016.

 

[The_Courteous_Quickster]

Hate to say it, but I suspect the ISS was not designed to last more than 10 years and without the shuttle it may be very difficult (and perhaps imposible) to keep the station operational as it ages. What can you do when the solar alpha rotational joints grind to a halt? And the beta joints as well? Without enough power, the station can't function properly. What happens when the CO2 scrubbers break down for good? I don't even want to think how difficult it will become when the waste recycling system goes on the blink. Without the shuttle it becomes very difficult to maintain the ISS. It may be that after 2016 some of these components won't be operational. It might be wise to not plan on it being operational until 2020. It might just be better to get the most use of of it while it still works and have a retirement plan in place when it's time to turn out the lights. It may end up cheaper to build another beter station with technology gained from the building and operation of the ISS.

 

[Wndflr]

Why do we as Americans do this pitifull start and stop with our space program and technology?? We go to the moon and stop before we are really started to explore. We start to build several versions of the space station, wasting money and time, stopping and go off in a new direction. Then we finally finish the damn thing, and decide we are going to shut it down before we get any benifit from it! Ludicris! Insane! Meanwhile we have other countries in the world waiting to eat our lunch by getting themselves into space, reaping the benifit of our hard work, grinning as we waste our resources and time so they can get into space and outflank us, with our own technology. Why don't we have a coherent plan to go forward into space, both public and private, not influenced by political vagaries or expediency. It makes me so mad I could scream! 40 years since Apollo and we are still piddling around in lower earth orbit.

 

[TC_sc]

NASA knew what it would cost to maintain this albatross when they started drawing the first design. Suddenly it's finished and they say, "This was fun lets tear down this house of cards and play with something else." In the total cost of ISS you have to include building the space shuttles since that was their sole purpose.

We have international partners, and in the coming years they will take on more and more of the operating cost. Maybe they need to pay more. If ISS was just a learning experience, then we could have stopped building it a long time ago since the later missions have just been doing things we have done many times before. There has to be more to ISS than to build and destroy it, and then ten years from now someone will be calling for a new orbital platform. NASA knows as long as ISS exist there can never be a new, more modern ISS.

 

[amoebaman]

There are lots of comments saying things similar to "This behemoth is costing too much to maintain". How much does it cost per year ? (I genuinely don't know, and at least one of the people who posted and/or support comments such as that must know).

I'd imagine that the ISS is currently costing more than it would normally, because it is still growing, and pieces are still being brought up several years later than envisaged because of the Columbia disaster. The fact that it is only now near completion has delayed it's use as a science facility rather than a construction site. However it will be completed soon, so I'd say leave it up there as long as possible.

Bigelow's manned space stations are a great idea, but until they are aloft, they are just that. An idea, like most private spaceflight ventures. Don't get me wrong, I cant wait to see private industry go into space, but it will be slow.
The ISS is up there already, almost complete, and daily helping us refine techniques for living in space. It can also serve as a springboard to further exploration. And while up there it will help privateers learn the dos and donts of space station construction and operation. Millions of years of living space begin now. I would suggest using the resources that are there already until they are superseded by private industry (e.g Bigelow). Also, being a space ignoramus, I love the idea of boosting it to a higher orbit upon retirement and not crashing it into the ocean.

 

[Eman_3]

First off, it is known as the International Space Station. Yup, international. Although the USA has contributed most of the hardware and launches, it does not own the station. There are complex agremeents concerning the running, costs, and allocation of resources for the station. If the USA does decide to withdraw from the space station, what could happen next is based on how the rest react. For instance, the Russian modules have the thrusters intended for de-orbit. But the Russians are working on a plan to remove their modules and possibly build another station around them. So suddenly the USA does not have the method of de-orbiting the station anymore. And it is possible other nations will remove what they own, modules and components, and follow the Russian lead.
The other partners on the International Space Station have committed themselves to this endeavor, and if the USA withdraws, then they will be just one partner less. A major partner, but the rest have the abilities and resources to continue. The USA will be perceived as an unreliable partner for space endeavors because of these factors, and future attempts at international co-operation will be tainted by the fact the USA is an unreliable partner.
Most likely, the rest will continue, build their own, much less ambitious, station, and continue in their quest for research and learning. The USA will fall behind in this area of science.
The remaining nations such as Russia, Canada, Japan, Brasil, Italy, and the ten Member States of the European Space Agency will probably forge new alliances and business deals, and eventually find themselves the leaders in all areas of space technology. China will most probably join in, and this core will eventually give birth to the international expedition that lands a man on Mars.

Meanwhile, the USA will have to purchase a European tug to de-orbit the station, and find themselves without a foothold in space. There is still a lot to learn about making a manned mission a success, and the USA just won't have a space station or resources to do that. So what does the USA do? Anything with high risk would be unthinkable, and without the knowledge the space station brings, even small steps, such as going back to the moon would be very difficult.

The day the USA decides to abandon the International Space Station will be the day the USA surrenders leadership in space exploration, and allow other nations to forge ahead, and it is they who will be the ones to land on Mars, and go beyond.

 

[docm]

First off, it is known as the International Space Station. Yup, international. Although the USA has contributed most of the hardware and launches, it does not own the station.

And most of the dime and resources expended have been ours. No US bucks, no ISS unless the other members pick up the slack. The likelihood of that are about as high as the other UN member states paying their share of the UN budget proportionate to their populations. Slim and none.

The day the USA decides to abandon the International Space Station will be the day the USA surrenders leadership in space exploration, and allow other nations to forge ahead, and it is they who will be the ones to land on Mars, and go beyond.

Too late with the ISS sucking every free dollar out of NASA's puny budget.

 

[Eman_3]

And most of the dime and resources expended have been ours. No US bucks, no ISS unless the other members pick up the slack. The likelihood of that are about as high as the other UN member states paying their share of the UN budget proportionate to their populations. Slim and none.

Fact, the USA owes money to the UN. 1.4 billion dollars, give or take a few bucks.

Too late with the ISS sucking every free dollar out of NASA's puny budget.

David Mould/Michael Cabbage
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1898/1600
david.r.mould@nasa.gov,mcabbage@nasa.gov

Feb. 4, 2008 RELEASE : 08-034 NASA Unveils $17.6 Billion Budget WASHINGTON - NASA announced a $17.6 billion budget for fiscal year 2009 to continue exploring the solar system, building the International Space Station, studying Earth from space and conducting aeronautics research.

NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said the increase for NASA's 2009 budget demonstrates President Bush's commitment to the agency's missions. With the increase, NASA still accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget.

The NASA budget includes $5.78 billion for the space shuttle and space station programs, $4.44 billion for science, $3.5 billion for development of new manned spacecraft systems and $447 million for aeronautics research.

Of that, the budget for the ISS will be approximately 2.5 billion annually.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345956main_9_Space_Operations_FY_2010_UPDATED_final.pdf

In summation, the ISS will drain 2.5 billion of a 17.6 billion budget. Maybe 15%.

 

[jakethesnake]

The cornerstone of all headaches for NASA is the ISS, and I would think that if it is so imperative that NASA has a clear set of goals and a clear set of directives, then why shouldn’t the same holds true for the ISS?

If we are not going to exploit the ISS and reap some sort of return, then I say DUMP THE DAMN THING INTO THE OCEAN NOW!

There needs to be some return on the capital that was spent here, this thing cost over 100 billion to build, and what... are we to just burden the cost with nothing in return?

 

[docm]

Fact, the USA owes money to the UN. 1.4 billion dollars, give or take a few bucks.

$1.3 billion. $700 million of that is due to legislative (read: Congress) and longstanding foreign policy (read: the Administration, several of them) withholdings that are as likely to be paid as hell freezing over the way the UN leadership is acting. The rest is due to the Helms-Biden legislation of 1999 (yes, that Biden....our current VP). It's been withheld because the UN has failed to meet a series of severely needed reform benchmarks.

When they get their heads out of their arses the monies will be released. Their bad.

In summation, the ISS will drain 2.5 billion of a 17.6 billion budget. Maybe 15%.

NASA can't afford that much of a margin given that most of the Constellation budget fuss was over that much of a shortfall. Lose the station and Constellation is possible, but only if EELV's are fully implemented.

 

[docm]

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.

The Bigelow modules are based on a former NASA design for an ISS habitat: TransHab (Wiki....)

Not really inflatable they're more properly called expandable. They have rigid bulkheads and hatches at either end with a box-frame core running from end to end. The flexible walls are 16" thick multi-layered and made of several air bladders, kevlar, vectran (both high strength fabrics) and other layers with the option of a water blanket layer for radiation protection. The walls are compressed around the core for launch then expanded to full volume and rigidified once in orbit. Mission stores are stowed within the core then placed in their use locations by the first crew (launched separately). These would include modular sleeping quarters etc.

NASA, as they usually do with promising concepts, lost funding and sold the patents to Bigelow Aerospace, owned by hotel chain owner Robert T. Bigelow. They made many improvements and have launched two prototype modules which have been great successes. The manned Sundancer (Wiki) module is scheduled for launch around 2011 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 (Wiki....) and likely crewed soon after either by their own proposed Orion Lite (Wiki....) or the SpaceX Dragon (Wiki....). If all goes well 2 of the much larger BA-330 modules (Wiki....) will be added to Sundancer to make up the first private space station.

Dedicated Bigelow update thread w/pics both in and out: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11776

Bigelow Aerospace home: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com

Bigelow Aerospace Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace

 

[Eman_3]

When they get their heads out of their arses the monies will be released. Their bad.

As always, there are two sides to the story.

Since 1991 the United States has been the world's dominant military, economic, social, and political power, the United Nations was not designed for such a unipolar world with a single superpower, and conflict between an ascendant U.S. and other UN members has increased. Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO, and began to deliberately withhold its UN dues as a form of pressure on the UN. The U.S. was---and continues to be---the member state levied most heavily by the UN, so U.S. policymakers expected this tactic to be an effective way to assert U.S. influence over the UN. The U.S. eventually repealed its policy of withholding funds in an effort to mend the U.S.-UN relationship, but not before the U.S. had accumulated a significant debt to the UN.

 

[docm]

Check the Bigelow update thread.....trust me.

 

[TC_sc]

Check the Bigelow update thread.....trust me.

I'm not sure I get the Bigelow modules. Their weight is comparable with frame built modules. I think that's why NASA dropped the idea since they could build hard frame modules for near the same price and weight. I think they might be a good choice for Mars or Lunar habitats since you can stow them in a smaller area. Also they might be viable for some launch systems that can carry a lot of weight, but nothing large.

I am all for private industry in space, but so far no one has shown they are close to putting a man in orbit, much less build a hotel. Since ISS needs money, they should lease part of it to private industry. Thats a solution that helps everyone. Since there are the Bigelow modules already built and the station was designed to accept them, why not lease life support to Bigelow space. Money will solve all of ISS's ills.

 

[docm]

Actually those modules in the form of TransHab were dropped because of funding cuts.

Bigelow's target isn't "hotels" (though he is a hotelier) but a private space station where companies, smaller nations etc. can rent out space for experiments.

My readings indicate its advantages include

light weight per volume; a BA-330 weighs about the same as the ISS's Zarya module, but is just shy of twice the diameter and longer (45x22 feet for Bigelow vs. 41.2x13 feet for Zarya)

radiation protection (16" thick polymer walls have a lot of hydrogen bonded in them), and the ability to use water blankets to further improve radiation shielding

micrometeoroid protection (lots of Kevlar and Vectran in the 16" thick walls)

better insulation

Bigelow has also developed a fire shelter for use in each module

In the TransHab days NASA used one of their high velocity guns to fire projectiles at TransHab and ISS simulators. TransHab won handily; the ISS simulator was shredded and the TransHab wall was not. Damage to its outer layers, yes. Fully penetrated, not even close.

 

[TC_sc]

Actually those modules in the form of TransHab were dropped because of funding cuts.

Bigelow's target isn't "hotels" (though he is a hotelier) but a private space station where companies, smaller nations etc. can rent out space for experiments.

My readings indicate its advantages include

light weight per volume; a BA-330 weighs about the same as the ISS's Zarya module, but is just shy of twice the diameter and longer

radiation protection (16" thick polymer walls have a lot of hydrogen bonded in them), and the ability to use water blankets to further improve radiation shielding

micrometeoroid protection (lots of Kevlar and Vectran in the 16" thick walls)

better insulation

Bigelow has also developed a fire shelter for use in each module

In the TransHab days NASA used one of their high velocity guns to fire projectiles at TransHab and ISS simulators. TransHab won handily; the ISS simulator was shredded and the TransHab wall was not. Damage to its outer layers, yes. Fully penetrated, not even close.

Thanks for the update on the Bigelow modules. I guess you compared the weight to that of the Zarya with the Bigelow having the exact same functions. Zayra has some heavy duty engines and environmental equipment.

For all the other reasons you stated is why I suggested their use in Mars/Lunar, or even interplanetary spacecraft, habitats. If you are right and the weight is less, or the same, as in modules of similar size and usable space, they they would be worthwhile for any application.

BTW, Bigelow himself was the one that used the 'hotel' term in an interview. What you call it is semantics. My point is if NASA plans to discard ISS due to funding problems, why not lease it to someone that will make use and maintain the station. The Bigelow modules can be attached to the station if Bigelow just wants to use their modules. Seems a waste of money, though, if they can lease space on ISS.

 

[docm]

Thanks for the update on the Bigelow modules. I guess you compared the weight to that of the Zarya with the Bigelow having the exact same functions. Zayra has some heavy duty engines and environmental equipment.

All their modules have maneuvering systems built by Aerojet and others (again, see the start of the Bigelow Updates thread) and each module has its own environmental equipment as well as their own solar panels.

Bigelow also has a large propulsion bus that while usually fitted to the node for launch it can dock to either BA-330 or Sundancer via the node. Good not only for in-orbit maneuvering it can also boost modules up and down to higher orbits (part of the initial Sundancer mission in 2011ish). Knowing the diameter of the node CBM openings to be 50" and going from their artwork I'd guesstimate it at about 28 feet long and 9+ feet wide, not counting the node.

For all the other reasons you stated is why I suggested their use in Mars/Lunar, or even interplanetary spacecraft, habitats. If you are right and the weight is less, or the same, as in modules of similar size and usable space, they they would be worthwhile for any application.

BTW, Bigelow himself was the one that used the 'hotel' term in an interview. What you call it is semantics. My point is if NASA plans to discard ISS due to funding problems, why not lease it to someone that will make use and maintain the station. The Bigelow modules can be attached to the station if Bigelow just wants to use their modules. Seems a waste of money, though, if they can lease space on ISS.

The reason is its very high operational costs: ISS is a funding black hole when it comes to that, which is a deal breaker when it comes to doing business on it. Enter Bigelow and DragonLab.

IMO ISS, like the shuttle, were technology demonstrators using 60's and 60's tech that have far exceeded their utility because of 1) operational costs and 2) safety in the case of the shuttle, which the ISS will have a hard time continuing without.

What happens post shuttle when (not if) some core structure takes a big hit and can't be replaced? EOM for the ISS.

If a Bigelow hab is penetrated, a far less likely eventuality than ISS tin cans according to NASA's own tests of TransHab, they can undock it from the station node, discard it and launch a replacement.

 

[TC_sc]

Thanks for the update on the Bigelow modules. I guess you compared the weight to that of the Zarya with the Bigelow having the exact same functions. Zayra has some heavy duty engines and environmental equipment.

All their modules have maneuvering systems built by Aerojet and others (again, see the start of the Bigelow Updates thread). Bigelow also has a large propulsion bus that while usually fitted to the Sundancer core module (SD+node+bus) it can dock to their other modules. Good not only for in-orbit maneuvering it can also boost modules up and down to higher orbits (part of the initial Sundancer mission in 2011ish). Knowing the diameter of the node CBM openings to be 50" and going from their artwork I'd guesstimate it at about 28 feet long and 9+ feet wide, not counting the node.

For all the other reasons you stated is why I suggested their use in Mars/Lunar, or even interplanetary spacecraft, habitats. If you are right and the weight is less, or the same, as in modules of similar size and usable space, they they would be worthwhile for any application.

BTW, Bigelow himself was the one that used the 'hotel' term in an interview. What you call it is semantics. My point is if NASA plans to discard ISS due to funding problems, why not lease it to someone that will make use and maintain the station. The Bigelow modules can be attached to the station if Bigelow just wants to use their modules. Seems a waste of money, though, if they can lease space on ISS.

The reason is its high operational costs: ISS is a funding black hole when it comes to that.

I'm just not one for throwing things away. I think anything can be used and reused and ISS isn't any different. Since ISS is in operation, and probably will be for some time to come, why not lease out space? I would think you can work out a deal to lease space cheaper than building and launching new hardware.

If ISS is a blackhole eating money, then so will be any other space platform. ISS has core components that any manned space based platform will need. ISS might be mismanaged and might have hardware that is more trouble that it's worth, but those problems can be solved. The governments and private industry need to work together, not compete against each other. Space exploration is expensive no matter if it's LEO or Mars. Pooling resources is a must if everyone is to move in the same direction.

When we have a lunar base and it is even a little sufficient, then it would be time to get rid of ISS. If we ditch ISS we are back to 30 day Orion LEO missions doing what little science you can do in such a confined space. That would be as much as a setback to us as was doing nothing after the lunar missions.

Someday, someone like Bigelow might build a space station that can replace ISS, but I don't see that happening in the near future. It's nice to dream, but we have to be realistic. For now, ISS is all we have.

 

[Booban]

There is no space to lease, not much anyways. After the shuttle exploded, this station is just core complete, not the big version with more living space.

Don't like throwing things away either, but don't think it will happen in this case for the foreseeable future. Thank goodness it is international.

 

[TC_sc]

There is no space to lease, not much anyways. After the shuttle exploded, this station is just core complete, not the big version with more living space.

Don't like throwing things away either, but don't think it will happen in this case for the foreseeable future. Thank goodness it is international.

Seems to have room for six people as I see things. As best as I can remember they are just going to leave off the one, largest, science lab. Cut the crew back to three and lease space for the other three. Bigelow has a module ready to fly, he can attach it to the station and still save lots. I'm not sure how much life support capability they have on ISS, but I suspect it is more than six. Leave one of the cargo modules attached if they are that desperate for space, there are lots of options that don't include deorbit.

We can rent test space for the VASIMR plasma engine. That's slated to go to ISS anyway. I just list it as one of the many things we can do. Renting space isn't just habitable space.

It seems that many are just ready to dump it and move on to the next thing on the drawing board. Let me think, what is that? I think Orion is the only thing that can fly in a decade and with the Democrats in power it looks like anything beyond LEO is off the board, other than the NEO mission. Since ISS is such an albatross we can just down it and stay earthbound. Those are the only options in the foreseeable future.

You could take the money it takes to maintain two ISS and you won't get to the moon any time soon. If you do it's just to collect more rocks and take pics of the Apollo 11 landing site. You might make an orbital trip to Mars, might.


Ok to edit my own post. Yea I forget all the human slots on ISS are bought and paid for so nix that. I still think we can put more than six people on there.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Ok to edit my own post. Yea I forget all the human slots on ISS are bought and paid for so nix that. I still think we can put more than six people on there.

I don't believe that is true. I recall hearing that the environmental systems margins are close enough with six people that it could not support additional crew.

Things like oxygen, and CO2 removal, bathroom facilities, water. You know, those nagging problems with humans

 

[TC_sc]

Ok to edit my own post. Yea I forget all the human slots on ISS are bought and paid for so nix that. I still think we can put more than six people on there.

I don't believe that is true. I recall hearing that the environmental systems margins are close enough with six people that it could not support additional crew.

Things like oxygen, and CO2 removal, bathroom facilities, water. You know, those nagging problems with humans

Yeah, but the rest of it was so good, and I am lazy, so thats why I didn't rewrite

They can give it to me and I'll find something that it can be used for