Future plans for ISS for 2010-2025 onwards?

[dreada5]

After reading the following article someone posted on the forums, its obvious that RSA has plans to maximise the usage of ISS (or their part) to develop near-earth space industrialisation and support lunar missions.<br /><br />http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/news/news-2006/public_07-01.html<br /><br />Other than using the station to continue researching the long term effects of space on humans during extended voyages, what are NASA's plans for the completed ISS over the next 20 years?<br /><br />The station's use should be maximised for its remaining life which will depend on the useful life of ISS and how long can we continue to use/inhabit ISS before major, non-replaceable hardware/structures fail.<br /> <br />Will NASA only use/pay for the $100 billion station just for the next 10 years until it returns to the moon?!!<br /><br />Are the definite plans for future private space industry to have access to its facilities and provide transportation services to any interested parties?<br /><br />Will there be any interested parties considering Bigelow and Virgin/Branson seemed destined to setup their own shop in LEO within the next decade? <br /><br />If they are initially successful they could turn out to be the only game in (LEO) town to which the industry/public subscribes. What then for ISS?<br /><br />Discuss...

 

[kane007]

I think, that if NASA were to make full use of their investment, they will maintain, albeit, a largely, reduced presence. It makes common sense that the farm out to private corporations as much as possible.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Will NASA only use/pay for the $100 billion station just for the next 10 years until it returns to the moon?!! </font>/i><br /><br />NASA currently (as of the last long-term budget plannings I saw) plans to stop funding for ISS in 2016 or 2017, but NASA doesn't plan to reach the Moon until 2018-2020. So NASA currently plans to exit ISS <i>before</i> returning to the Moon.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">what are NASA's plans for the completed ISS over the next 20 years?</font>/i><br /><br />NASA has been criticized by various government oversite groups for not having a strong plan. I suspect this probably relates in part to Griffin not being fond of ISS and NASA not having much of a budget for ISS research. At one point during this last year NASA had zeroed out all budget for ISS research for 2007 due to budget tightness and Griffin's desire to protect the VSE. However, I believe that some of that money has been restored.<br /><br />NASA's "solution" is to call ISS a "national laboratory" -- which means that anyone can do research on it, but you have to get your money from someone other than NASA. For example, you might get research dollars from the National Institute of Health to do biomedical experiments on ISS.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">If they are initially successful they could turn out to be the only game in (LEO) town to which the industry/public subscribes. What then for ISS?</font>/i><br /><br />Legally, the organization that put an object into orbit is responsible for bringing it down. Bringing ISS down in a controlled and orderly fashion may be potentially expensive. Given that NASA plans to stop spending money on ISS after 2017, a question is (1) will NASA insist on "splashing" ISS by 2017, or (2) will NASA get a signed agreement for other countries to take on that cost?<br /><br />Likewise, ISS is expensive to maintain now and will be even more so as it gets bigger over the</i></i></i>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>RadarRedux sez;</b><br /><br />In short, the operational costs of a Bigelow station may be much cheaper than ISS. If that is the case, who is going to pay the expensive upkeep of ISS when a cheaper alternative is available?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The same politically motivated types who got us into this mess using taxpayer dollars, who else? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

RadarRedux,<br /><br />Private sector investment in off planet development is unlikely to occur until some idea of what can be done up there emerges. To further this end, the government would be wise to encourage the use of American facilities on the International Space Station by companies interested in microgravity research. Perhaps a 'national laboratory' approach might be appropriate, or giving different companies exclusive use of the facility for six months to a year at a time, in return for some offsetting of the maintenance costs.<br /><br />Developing new products is not NASA's job, but making it easier to do so is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[docm]

Best case scenario IMO;<br /><br />Falcon's 1, 5 and up to 9-s9 all work, Dragon works, Dream Chaser goes orbital, Rutans Level 3 works and CSS Skywalker gets built along with other habs. <br /><br />SpaceX builds their BFR & its Merlin-3 engines (F-1 class; 6.7 MN), LM man-rates the Atla, builds "Orion Lite" etc. and those mentioned move beyond LEO.<br /><br /> NASA can play with the ISS and do what they want at their government mandated snails pace, and by the time the politicians are finished they get to the Moon just in time for their rooms to be ready at the Bigelow Lunar Arms <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

My suggestions: boost ISS away from the dang atmosphere so it can be safely mothballed if the maintenance money dries up. Under no circumstances bring it down; we paid a lot to get all that mass up there! If necessary just scrounge it for parts. It was all bolted together by astronauts - it can be unbolted again.

 

[dreada5]

Good post kadetken. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I think what you've mentioned is possible. But as you said at the end of the day Congress will see to it that NASA keeps the international partners happy one way or another. <br /><br />I don't think Congress is in a rush to the moon as it is to see obligations to international partners met successfully. They probably don't care much that ISS capabilities/operational costs will soon start to be overtaken by Bigelow's (and others) technologies.<br /><br />Somehow I can't see the world 10 years from now still paying $20 million+ to routinely send scientist/researchers to a completed ISS. New options (such as Bigelow/Virgin and possibly COTS) will appear and today's typical associated costs, to access space and work, won't be on the table.

 

[dreada5]

I also agree with you guys that once ISS has completed its usage as a national laboratory for the US (and other nations) and once this is no longer feasible for whatever reason (launch, upkeep costs etc) then yes, it should be boosted into a higher orbit and mothballed (~ circa 2020?).<br /><br />Perhaps another idea is to break it up and have private industry to provide "tugs" to transport modules/hardware etc to the lunar orbit or surface for the outpost. Depending on their condition upon arrival they <b>SHOULD</b> be useful airtight hab modules, storage shelters, spare parts for systems. This seems like a logical and worthwhile end use for a huge $100 billion station. <br /><br />After all, that hardware would have already made the toughest/most expensive part of the journey just getting off-earth and into LEO!! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[spacester]

I've predicted this before, and I'll do it again:<br /><br />ISS will still be operational in 2035<br /><br />!!!!<br /><br />I'll explain why I think so some other time, just thought I'd throw a wild card into the discussion. There are a lot of good posts and reasoning here, it's not that I disagree really. I just see another path developing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">ISS will still be operational in 2035 <br /></font><br /><br />The venerable B-52 is still operational, 61 years later. The ISS could last that long, given enough taxpayer support. (Although Mir lasted just 15 years)<br /><br />The real question is: do you want the limited space budget to go towards maintaining the ISS, or doing something new? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[holmec]

I guess it wouldn't have to be taxpayer support. Maybe some commercial companies will invest time and support to it in exchange for operational time on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I guess it wouldn't have to be taxpayer support. Maybe some commercial companies will invest time and support to it in exchange for operational time on it.</i><br /><br />ISS is going to end up being an exotic national lab. It's already in the works, and a much better solution than making NASA carry the whole burden (and underutilizing it). They scared off commercial interest in ISS a long time ago, and the microgravity is spoiled by station keeping and astronauts bumping into stuff. <br /><br />With nothing disastrous happening, I can see ISS functioning as a multi-government lab for decades. It might even get a BA330 and the centrifuge. I don't see it being a place that big or small business will do research on. There will be other, more affordable and customizable solutions for that.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[brellis]

I just had a notion: could the ISS be useful as an <i>unmanned</i> orbiting lab? Could a staff of robots continue scientific experiments in a less-expensive manner?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

We could affix ion propulsion thrusters to the station. They could draw on the energy output from the solar panels, much of which would be unnecessary if there aren't any humans aboard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Many systems will pass expected lifespans with no practical maintenance possible.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I tend to agree, though I am reminded of the venerable Mars rovers who have blown the 90 days right out of the sand. I'd expect ISS to go well beyond warranty (budget willing), though perhaps not quite as far as spacester is predicting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

national??? Its an International station. And Roskosmos has already made the precedence with the tourists as far as commercial. So I think via Roskosmos, other parties like companies and universities might be able to send people up to conduct their own experiments for research and development. If NASA pulls away from the station I bet that could be a possiblility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

It would pobably be more beneficial to continue sending up crews. Anyway the fate of ISS will be bound with the control of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> national??? Its an International station. And Roskosmos has already made the precedence with the tourists as far as commercial</i><br /><br />Yes, National Lab. It's an official US designation of our research facilities, and it is potentially a much bigger pie than NASA's budget. The legislation was filed recently. It has nothing to do with Russian or other operations on ISS, only US ops. And it makes sense. ISS is so tied into NASA that the only way the US segment would not be under NASA control is when it gets scuttled. They have shown about zero interest in long term private mission specialists onboard. And... Bigelow's first station will be much cheaper for those kind of ops, in a sooner timeframe.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"I just had a notion: could the ISS be useful as an unmanned orbiting lab? Could a staff of robots continue scientific experiments in a less-expensive manner? "<br /><br />Not really. As was evident after Columbia, we reviewed every system to see if we could deman the station. If we did it was given an approximately 6 month life expectancy so we pushed as hard as we could to keep it manned.

 

[brandbll]

If we demanned the station for a matter of months like you just said, would it even be possible to salvage the ISS at that point; or would it be doomed no matter what we did(like a shuttle reboost)? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

hi erioladastra<br /><br />What falls apart? Internal systems? Is the 6-month life expectancy of an unmanned ISS due to lack of improvisational abilities in robots should something go haywire?<br /><br />What if ion propulsion thrusters were installed to keep a mothballed ISS in orbit? Those solar panels must produce lots of energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

[quote9hi erioladastra <br /><br />What falls apart? Internal systems? Is the 6-month life expectancy of an unmanned ISS due to lack of improvisational abilities in robots should something go haywire? <br /><br />What if ion propulsion thrusters were installed to keep a mothballed ISS in orbit? Those solar panels must produce lots of energy. <p><hr /><br /><br />There is more to keeping a station intact in space than just boosting its orbit. While I am not sure where this 6 monhts life expectancy unmanned comes from, it is save to say that starting 2015 the ISS will have the very same problems that Mir had in its last years of operations. <br /><br />Space is a harsh environment. Modules cannot withstand the extremes in space for many years and electronic and mechanical systems that are used permanently are due to fail after 10 to 15 years as well (in any complex machine). When an extension of the Mir mission was discussed in 1999, it was clear that in order to keep it in a condition suitable for being manned a lot of internal servicing would need to be made. In addition, in space safety considerations cannot just be ignored - if a module has a nominal lifetime expectancy of 10 years (micrometeriod shield, electronics etc.) it is not wise to operate it 15, 20 or more years. In 2016 the Russian segment will be 2-3 years over its lifetime, the Destiny lab as well and every other module will be at the end of its life time circle (for instance Columbus has a 10 year life time expectancy). Considering that, even if funding was not an issue, maintenance and safety considerations would call for an end of the ISS at some point between 2015 and 2020.</p>

 

[halman]

themanwithoutapast,<br /><br />From where I am standing, we had better start examining the components of the International Space Station to find out what is wearing out, getting beat up by micrometeors, stressed by thermal contraction/expansion cycles, or torqued by altitude boosts, so that we can begin designing equipment with longer lifespans. Space is going to be where a lot of things are done, and building the facilities required to do those things will be critical. If we must replace everything every 10-15 years 50 years down the road, we are not doing something right.<br /><br />We are having to learn practically everything about existing in space, and learning is usually expensive. The paybacks come in the form of engineering adapted to the environment, materials that are designed to withstand the extremes, and practices which prevent failures. Many people did not realize that wing hours were not the only criteria to be used in judging the operational age of an aircraft, as the failure of the 737 cabin in Hawaii a few years back pointed out. That is part of the learning process regarding aircraft maintenance, which has altered the Non Destructive Inspection regime for all aircraft.<br /><br />The ISS will be valuable even when it no longer holds air, because it will have been in space for longer than any other major assembly. Learning the lessons that it will have to teach us could save us huge sums of money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"There is more to keeping a station intact in space than just boosting its orbit. While I am not sure where this 6 monhts life expectancy unmanned comes from, it is save to say that starting 2015 the ISS will have the very same problems that Mir had in its last years of operations."<br /><br />Correct. The biggest issue was the cooling systems. They require tweaking as the orbit changes over the year and if things break you have to have a human repair before serious damage is done. There are other systems that require a human to periodicaly tend or repair.