Future plans for ISS for 2010-2025 onwards?

[erioladastra]

"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, ..."<br /><br />Yes, that is occurring. To help ensure the lifetime of the ISS and future vehicles are met.

 

[erioladastra]

"Is the 6-month life expectancy of an unmanned ISS due to lack of improvisational abilities in robots "<br /><br />Robots? No robots exist that could take the place of humans on ISS at this point. And we couldn't afford to build them if they did. ISS was to be fully autonomous and it was scaled back because too expensive to do so.

 

[dreada5]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/769/1<br /><br />Whilst I'd guess other scenarios are possible still, Taylor Dinerman writes a good take on what could happen. <br /><br />What I believe is true though, is that the world (both governments and industry) will recognise that the $100 billion ISS is valuable real estate/habitat in space that with continued funding/expansion will be crucial in supporting not only VSE, but certain future industrial space activities. <br /><br />It'd be madness to not keep it for several decades now!

 

[nitegrafix]

If the shuttle is to be retired by 2010-2011, and I don't know of any immediate plans (3-4 years) for the 3 MPLM's Leonardo, Raffaello and Donatello after their servicing missions to ISS. And since it seems that living space or at the very least, storage space has always been at a premium on ISS, why not just leave Donatello attached to Node 2 (same place the Centrifuge module was going to be) permanently after the fourth-last shuttle mission, flight 19A. By coincidence, Donatello is the most capable, as it can carry powered payloads. In this mission, Donatello will deliver equipment for enlarging the station crew from three to six astronauts. Depending on the purpose, it can be equipped with power, data and fluid to support refrigerators or freezers, or it can be used to stow excess materials. All three MPLM's include components that provide life support (oxygen, water and temperature control), fire detection and suppression, electrical distribution and computer capabilities. As extra living space for 6 crew members, extra storage space for contingency or normal ISS usage, it's scheduled to go up anyway and after the cancellation of the Centrifuge module, it seems like just another waste of money to bring Donatello back to earth to be retired. What do you folks think? <br />

 

[erioladastra]

"I don't know of any immediate plans (3-4 years) for the 3 MPLM's Leonardo, Raffaello and Donatello after their servicing missions to ISS."<br /><br />It is being discussed. One of the problems is they don't have the micrometeroid shielding (and not enough time/practical to change) but that can be worked around (I.e., leave hatches closed). Another problem is a very limited manifest availability and while we need to take UP a lot, we also need to still bring DOWN a lot. <br /><br />"Depending on the purpose, it can be equipped with power, data and fluid to support refrigerators or freezers, or it can be used to stow excess materials."<br /><br />That would be a fair bit of expense - it would not be easy to add the connecting fluid and data lines. If they stay on orbit they likely be just big closets (plus see above about shielding).<br /><br />"All three MPLM's include components that provide life support (oxygen, water and temperature control), fire detection and suppression, electrical distribution and computer capabilities"<br /><br />Not correct. There only vents and there is no water lines. Fire detection is very minimal and all modules have as fir suppression shutting off the fans and closing the vents. COmputer capabilities is limited to a single computer that is used for monitor a few basic systems, but there is not even a crew interface.<br /><br />I think there is a chance it MIGHT be left up there but if it is it will only be a closet. However, with funds etc I doubt it will happen.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think there is a chance it MIGHT be left up there but if it is it will only be a closet. However, with funds etc I doubt it will happen.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Depending on the exact cost, perhaps ESA could finance the refitting in Italy and then take (some/all) ownership of them once launched??

 

[erioladastra]

"Depending on the exact cost, perhaps ESA could finance the refitting in Italy and then take (some/all) ownership of them once launched??"<br /><br />Not likely, ESA can barelyafford its current obligations and does not have adequate funding post Columbus activation.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"Not likely, ESA can barelyafford its current obligations and does not have adequate funding post Columbus activation."<br /><br />??? Where did you get that notion? In contrast to NASA's annual budget problems, ESA financing is project based. ESA has no problem to fund any ISS related activities, may it be Columbus, ATV, ground station in Germany, science missions, the ERA etc.

 

[erioladastra]

"ESA has no problem to fund any ISS related activities, may it be Columbus, ATV, ground station in Germany, science missions, the ERA etc. "<br /><br />Because they have been fighting for survival for both the ISS and ATV programs. Columbus has been on the threats lift for a while - if they didn't get it up soon they were very likely going to be cut by the board of directors. This is reason the Columbus mission was acclerated at great pain - if NASA didn't show that it was going in 2007 it wasn't going to go at all. Similar story with ATV. That is one reason all the mantra is ATV will be in 2007. In fact, there is is pressure to launch even if not ready. If ATV goes in 2007 there is a decent chance that it may not be full to capacity of cargo.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

eriol: friend, I mean not to say it too harshly, but obviously you are living in a parallel universe. Every line you just postet is utter nonesense.<br /><br />"Because they have been fighting for survival for both the ISS and ATV programs."<br /><br />Beg your pardon? In which sense were they fighting for survival? There hasn't been even one single discussion during the start of the ISS program that ESA leaves the program. As to the ATV: there was never discussion about it being developed, the question that has been discussed a couple of years back was the number of flights required to meet ESA's obligations. This number was cut back from 6+3 originally to only 6 (after mods to the ISS construction plans) to 5 after additional modifications.<br /><br />"Columbus has been on the threats lift for a while - if they didn't get it up soon they were very likely going to be cut by the board of directors. "<br /><br />1. ESA does not have a "board of directors". Funding is agreed on by the memberstates in ministerial conferences.<br />2. ESA does not incur costs for Columbus while it is on the ground, the module has been already shipped to KSC.<br /><br /><br />"This is reason the Columbus mission was acclerated at great pain - if NASA didn't show that it was going in 2007 it wasn't going to go at all."<br /><br />Very wrong, the change to modify the launch schedule had already been made prior to the Columbia disaster and was due to Kibo probably not being ready for launch on the prior schedule.<br /><br />"Similar story with ATV. That is one reason all the mantra is ATV will be in 2007. In fact, there is is pressure to launch even if not ready. If ATV goes in 2007 there is a decent chance that it may not be full to capacity of cargo."<br /><br />I don't quite understtand this sentence. However as to "ATV being not ready", Jules Verne is 100% for a year now and is in an extensive period of testing since the construction was finished. And by the way, Jules Verne will certainly be "full of ca

 

[themanwithoutapast]

newsartist: I was talking about construction. Jules Verne was ready to fly a year ago. You however normally test space hardware before its maiden flight in order to check, everything is ok, shouldn't you?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"eriol: friend, I mean not to say it too harshly, but obviously you are living in a parallel universe..."</font><br /><br />Apparently I'm in the same one as erioladastra. I send greetings from Universe One, mwap.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"ESA does not incur costs for Columbus while it is on the ground, the module has been already shipped to KSC."</font><br /><br />Wrongo. That's like saying the shuttle program doesn't cost NASA anything when it's not making any flights. ESA has fixed costs in personnel and facilities. You can find details in several articles that have appeard on SDC in the past, like this one: ESA Opens ISS Control Center Despite Delay of Columbus. And from here we have the following quote with an estimate of the cost of the delay: <br /><br /><i>"For ESA, the costs of the shuttle’s grounding have been high. The agency’s Columbus space station laboratory, which before the Columbia loss had been counting on a late-2004 launch aboard the shuttle, is now facing a delay of at least two years.<br /><br />In a July 13 interview, Feustel-Buechl said the agency has refined earlier estimates of the cost of this delay and now believes the bill will come to just under 200 million euros ($240 million)."</i><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Jules Verne is 100% for a year now..."</font><br /><br />What a happy alternate universe it must be that you live in. Here we see an article from July 2005 where ESA is 'confident' that Jules Verne will launch in spring 2006. Even at that -- the article talks of the 'much-delayed ATV'. I found half a dozen earlier articles like it -- with the launch date always about six months from the publication date. The

 

[themanwithoutapast]

From http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEM0EPG23IE_0.html (January 2006)<br />At ESA's test facilities in the Netherlands, technicians have been working hard on Jules Verne - Europe’s first Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - to replace all 48 valve-actuators in the spaceship’s propulsion system. This unexpected task will be completed by the end of this month. A challenging yearlong campaign of crucial environmental and functional tests will follow, ahead of the inaugural launch scheduled in 2007. <br />----------<br />Jules Verne's construction ended in Jan 2006 - since then it is being tested (that is what I said in my post)<br /><br />----------<br />As to ESA incurring costs in the delay: correct, the ISS program incurred financial expenses for people and facility working on the ISS project, that would have worked on the project even though Columbus would have been launched in 2004. The "loss" of 200 Mio. is correct in the sense that these costs do not yield any scientific result - from your link look at this paragraph:<br />"Columbus now tentatively is scheduled to be launched on the shuttle in late 2006 or early 2007. Feustel-Buechl said that while he will battle for the earliest possible date, nothing is less certain at NASA than the shuttle’s future manifest. But ESA must nonetheless keep industrial teams on minimum financial support in the meantime or risk having them disperse between now and the time they are needed."<br /><br />What I was explaining to eriol is that ESA has not debated at any time to pull out of the ISS project and no part of its contribution has been in doubt because of financial problems. If you disagree, please explain.

 

[rocketman5000]

I would assume that 100% means construction and not 100% ready to launch, but again that is an assumption and you know the cliche. <br /><br />edit: guess I should read all new posts before I put in my 2 cents...

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Jules Verne's construction ended in Jan 2006 - since then it is being tested (that is what I said in my post)"</font><br /><br />No -- it's not. What you said is:<br /><br /><font color="orange">"Jules Verne is 100% for a year now and is in an extensive period of testing"</font><br /><br />ESA never planned on launching JV without testing (one would hope). A test program is **part** of creating any complex project of this nature. You cannot claim JV is 100% completed... but still has a year of testing to undergo. Jules Verne is not "100% complete" until it undergoes all of required testing <b>successfully</b> and is being loaded on a boat preparatory to shipment to the launchpad. If something *fails* during testing (an all-too-common event on spacecraft since they are both complex and typically unique), then it will require repairs... which means that it's not even at 100% <b>construction</b>... and never was. In effect, you can't even claim that construction is 100% complete until you've finished testing. <br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"As to ESA incurring costs in the delay... yada yada yada... What I was explaining to eriol is... If you disagree, please explain. "</font><br /><br />What you <b>said</b> in your post to erioldastra indicating that what he said was pure fantasy is:<br /><br /><font color="orange">"ESA does not incur costs for Columbus while it is on the ground, the module has been already shipped to KSC"</font><br /><br />And this is a load of bovine byproduct -- ESA is incurring costs every day that can be specifically traced to the Columbus laboratory project. Backtracking to say that you agree there are costs associated with Columbus but that you were saying something *other* than what you did is cowardly. If you post something incorrect then admit it, correct it, and move on.

 

[erioladastra]

"I mean not to say it too harshly, but obviously you are living in a parallel universe. Every line you just postet is utter nonesense. "<br /><br />Debate we can but I would be careful with insults. I am very careful - I do not post unless I am sure of my facts or else I will state that I am not sure. <br /><br />"Beg your pardon? In which sense were they fighting for survival? There hasn't been even one single discussion during the start of the ISS program that ESA leaves the program. As to the ATV: there was never discussion about it being developed, the question that has been discussed a couple of years back was the number of flights required to meet ESA's obligations. This number was cut back from 6+3 originally to only 6 (after mods to the ISS construction plans) to 5 after additional modifications. "<br /><br />Perhaps you are confused. I am not sure what discussions you refer to. However, at the heads of agency, at the adminstrator and at witht he ehad of the ISS program we have been discusisng this for some time. The top ESA management made it veyr clear to NASA that they had been putting a great deal of money into Columbus and had nothing to show for it. No new funding was being allocated unless NASA could guarantee activation SOON. Apparently, you completely missed all the discussions (and I posted on it) about how the whole assembly sequence was altered to move everything up ONE FLIGHT. If we did not do that it very likely meant Columbus would not be funded. This info comes from the highest levels of ESA. ATV has been in a similar boat since it is so far behind schedule and folks are concerned about it being completed. There are even discussions ongoing about sending it up not ready or nearly empty just so they can show progress and keep the program.<br /><br />"ESA does not have a "board of directors". Funding is agreed on by the memberstates in ministerial conferences. "<br /><br />And they have made it clear they are unhappy.<br /><br />"ESA does not in

 

[erioladastra]

"You don't need to do an, "extensive period of testing," on a 100% ready item, do you?. "<br /><br />hardware being complete is only one thing. Ground systems, software, procedures, crew training - all need to be completed. Heck we don't even yet know if the critical SM antennae are now correctly oriented after the recent EVA. That test is not even scheduled for months, the software isn't even schedule to be loaded until May or June...

 

[erioladastra]

"that would have worked on the project even though Columbus would have been launched in 2004."<br /><br />Actually, no. The engineers building systems are different than those operating. There is a also a huge change in cost when you go from development to sustainging. <br /><br />"ESA has not debated at any time to pull out of the ISS project "<br /><br />Ok, I think you misunderstood me. I never said ESA threatened to withdraw from ISS (or I did not mean to), only that they would not continue to fund any of the Columbus project past the current FY if we didn't accelerate and ensure that it was flying soon. With no funding the industrial operations team (IOT) would be disbanded and it would not be likely to be recovered anytime soon. This is one reason NASA is still showing STS-122 far earlier then we are even working too. Even though the flights before it have slipped, the NASA program will not show the Columbus mission slipping to risk funding until it absolutely has too.<br /><br />Note that I am not trying to disparage anyone. These are just facts.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ISS will still be operational in 2035 <br /><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? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think if other agencies/private industry get involved in maintaining the station it could indeed still be there in 2035!<br /><br />Not only that but what about further construction like "PHASE TWO - DUAL KEEL" on a pay-as-you-go basis funded by other agencies/private industry??<br /><br />http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld041.htm <br /><br /><br />http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld099.htm