ISS after 2016

[themanwithoutapast]

I know it has come up a couple of times here, but it seems it has never been realistically discussed. What will happen to the ISS after 2016, that is after the announced withdrawal of the US from the project?<br /><br />Considering that annual costs NASA incurs directly related to the ISS (2 billion annually excluding Space Shuttle flights or payment for Soyuz/Progress or construction of elements - see http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/budget/fy2005-nasa/55411main_28_ISS.pdf for details), all commercial fantasies such as a privately operated space hotel etc. are not at all realistically.<br /><br />Thus if the ISS is still fully functional in 2016 and could well be used a couple of years longer, I see only three realistic scenarios:<br /><br />1. NASA rethinks its decision of pulling out of the project and allocates funds for further ISS operations, perhaps shifting some costs to international partners in exchange for higher usage percentage for them.<br /><br />2. ESA, JAXA, Russia (etc.) come up with a program to maintain ISS operations without NASA. That's as far as I see it the most interesting scenario to speculate about, with the main question being how this could function. While the main line items (management, engineering consulting, mission control etc.) composing NASA's current annual ISS costs could be reduced by using Russian/European ground control and engineering and managing capabilities already existing at ESA/JAXA, I would say an additional billion dollars would be the minimum costs incurred by all international partners in any event (probably much higher, as NASA is not spending its annual 2 billion just out of fun, rather these costs are actually needed to smoothly operate th ISS, in addition malfunctions and thus repairs would increase towards the ISS end of its lifespan - still looking back at the low budget Mir was operated on durin

 

[explorer11]

I agree with you...but I find it hard to believe that NASA and the US gov't would simply give up on the ISS and let it go. I'm sure they would find some way to justify continued funding of it. Personally, I wouldnt' mind if the just chose to stop construction of it immediatly...I'm one of those people who doesn't like the ISS all that much.

 

[space_dreamer]

There is no way that the ISS with be de-orbited in 2016. The Russians have a new module going up in 2007 and another in 2009. The Russian part of the ISS can function on its own if the US side is removed but what would be the point of dumping the billon dollar US part of the station? <br /><br />The ISS will be a success in the long run (I would put money on it!). All of the problems with the station are because of the Space shuttles high cost and very low fight rate. <br /><br />In the mid 80s Europe was planning its own smaller station, but Europe joined the freedom program instead, with the Columbus lab.<br /><br />http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAFRG0VMOC_iss_0.html<br />Cupola window<br /> http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA65K0VMOC_iss_0.html<br />And the manufacture of node 2 & 3. <br />http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA4ZJ0VMOC_iss_0.html<br />Not to mention the ETV.<br /><br />Politically the US has to deliver the European and Japanese labs it can’t afford to loose these allies in space to Russia or China.<br /><br />You have to remember that this is an international project and the US can’t walk away from it even if it wanted to! The US originally was putting the most into the project and it was US led, but really it’s the Russians who lead the project now. Yes, the US puts the most money in but that’s only because they use the massively expensive STS. <br /><br />By 2016 there will be several new manned and unmanned space craft, making trips to the ISS much cheaper. I suspect China will have joined the program also, the ISS will get bigger and bigger producing excellent research with or with out NASA. Bush might say the US will pull out in 2016 but he’ll be gone in 2008. In 2016 America won’t be able to pull out. To pull out of the project completely it would be

 

[themanwithoutapast]

@space_dreamer<br /><br />I'd like to point you to some common mistakes in your reasoning regarding cost structure of the ISS. <br /><br />1. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"The ISS will be a success in the long run (I would put money on it!). All of the problems with the station are because of the Space shuttles high cost and very low fight rate."<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If you follow the link I have posted above you will see that NASA's budget includes 2 billion annually for just "running" the ISS. These costs have nothing to do with the Space Shuttle costs or the costs of cargo transports or construction of the ISS. Rather the bulk of the money is needed for a. Spacecraft Operations (that is ISS operations in general - management) b. Launch and Mission Operations and c. Operations Program Integration (which all are independent line items from Space Shuttle costs). These costs will be rising to 2.5 billion for 2010 and keep rising until 2016. They are unrelated to the Space Shuttle.<br /><br />2. The 2016 deadline has been set at the beginning of the ISS project and all sources right now (including the ESAS report, the 2006 budget presented to Congress etc.) show 2016 as the end of NASA's ISS spending. Although it might be another ten years and funding for NASA might change in that period (although not likely), to say nobody would dump a 100 billion investment into the sea is flawed reasoning: Shuttle operations are discontinued in 2010 because of (the then speculated) 3-4 billion annual costs (comparable to annual ISS costs in 2016) to make way for the CEV and to make VSE a reality. This will be done, although STS represents in fact a 150 billion dollar "investment". The ISS in 2016 will still be operational just as the Shuttle will be operational in 2010, still both project are planned to be scrapped because of budget restraines.<br /><br />3. As I just said the ISS project ends in 2016, that's said in all contracts with all int

 

[nacnud]

What is there to run beyond paying the contracters to look after hardware that is still on the ground?

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What is there to run beyond paying the contracters to look after hardware that is still on the ground? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ok, I will copy the relevant sections with NASA's description of the costs from http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/budget/fy2005-nasa/55411main_28_ISS.pdf :<br /><br />1. Spacecraft Operations $ 812 million<br />'The primary objective of the Spacecraft Operations Program is to safely and reliably assemble, activate, integrate, and<br />operate the ISS on-orbit, and to perform these activities in an affordable manner. This requires a significant level of<br />planning, coordination, and execution. Spacecraft Operations provides the engineering expertise and analysis to sustain<br />the performance and reliability of Space Station hardware and software systems, spares provisioning, and maintenance<br />and repair as detailed in the budget table.'<br /><br />FY2005 PRESBUD 812.0<br />ISS Spacecraft Management .. 245.0<br />ISS Elements .. 32.9<br />Flight Systems .. 93.4<br />Avionics Systems .. 51.2<br />Crew Systems .. 10.6<br />Extra-Vehicular Activity Systems. 124.2<br />Flight Software .. 126.9<br />Logistics & Maintenance 124.1<br />Crew Transfer Vehicle 3.7<br /><br />2. Launch and Missions operations 458 million <br /><br />Launch and Mission Operations provides training, mission control operations, operations engineering support, operations<br />planning and cargo integration, medical support, and launch site processing for the International Space Station.<br /><br />FY2005 PRESBUD 458.3<br />Mission Integration 108.7<br />Medical Support 22.5<br />Mission 198.8<br />Launch Site Processing 128.3<br /><br />3. Operations Program Integration 353 Million<br /> <br />Operations Program Integration provides the overall ISS program management functions, system engineering, analysis<br />a

 

[themanwithoutapast]

The 2006 budget proposal has the costs rising the following way (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107487main_FY06_med.pdf):<br /><br />FY 2006 PRES BUD 1,363.7 1,676.3 1,856.7 1,835.3 1,790.9 2,152.3 2,375.5<br />International Space Station Program FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010

 

[shoogerbrugge]

that of course takes into account that the core modules have such a long life. Both Zarya and Zvezda are 16 years old by that time, thats older then MIR, and we all know the problems MIR faced, not only due to lack of funding but also aging of equipment.<br /><br />Another problem is that certain parts that might break can only be moved by the Shuttle, which will be retired in 2010. The Gyroscopes come to mind, they are too small to be moved by Progress and ATV I believe. Kind of a big risk, not being able to replace the gyroscopes..

 

[fatal291]

Moon Base?

 

[space_dreamer]

The advantage of the ISS being made from small modules is they and be replaced with out having to scrap the whole thing, if Zarya is getting old and worn out, an new module can be sent up to replace it. Learning from the construction of the other station modules, the Zarya replacement can be cheaper and more reliable and so it needs less ground support which lowers the cost of running the ISS. <br /><br />I think the ISS will be around for a long time with many new sections being added and replaced. The cost of running it can be spread between many nations; however Russia could afford to fully take over control and the running costs.<br /><br />A second point is that the more the ISS crew size increases, the better value it becomes, more research can be done and more tourists pay to visit. <br /><br />The more people can stay at the ISS the more it stimulates demand for new privately funded launchers from the likes of SpaceX and Tspace.<br /><br />I take your point that with out the Shuttle some of the parts will be hard to move but with the Russian Parom orbital tug, ATV, Kliper, CEV and spaceship3 we should manage to replace a gyroscope!<br />

 

[nacnud]

I think Japans HTV can deliver gyroscopes to the ISS. That is if it every materializes.

 

[mlorrey]

Mir only orbited for about a decade or so, and was on its last legs for a while before being deorbited. It is a bit much to expect ISS to last significantly longer, considering the same construction methods and designs were used.

 

[erioladastra]

"As long as NASA's top priority is the VSE (and mark my words there will be cost-overruns sooner or later), the ISS with NASA as the managing agency will not be operated after 2016. Rather as I outlined above someone else has to take that job, if the ISS should not be abandoned. If ESA, Roskosmos or JAXA happen to take the job, it might well be that NASA keeps involved after 2016 on a limited basis, but once again someone has to bear the burden of actually "running" the ISS which as I outlined above is rather expensive. "<br /><br />The problem is that another country (notwithstanding all the ITAR and export control issues) or a company could just come in and take over. It is not like there is a big manual for ISS that we could just hand over and say ok here is how you run it. The other modules are not the same as the core US segments and it is not like the IPs would learn how to operate the ISS from their relationship. An unexperienced team could not just come in. Plus NASA would have to figure out to transfer (or sell/rent) the infrastructure to operate the ISS while much of that same will be used for Constellation (i.e., they couldn't just sell everything and leave it). Then, as you note, would be the cost. I doubt that a foreign country would want to pay US companies to run it and they really don't have the infrastructure to run it themselves. I don't even see how a private company will do it.

 

[ldyaidan]

Can Bigelow's inflatable modules be designed to attach to the ISS? Might be a cheaper way to expand the station. Not sure what would be involved.<br /><br />Rae

 

[nacnud]

The main problem would be getting them to the station and berthing them, currently only the shuttle can do this. The HTV, if it gets built, and the ATV could be modified to do so but it could cost a lot.<br /><br />It also depends on the docking mechanisum Bigleow uses, currently there are four, Cone and drogue (3) Hybrid (1) APAS (2) CBM (3-7 depending on node 3), but only CBM has any that are 'spare'<br /><br />I've no idea which bigleow will use or if he has gone for a newer related design called LIDS.

 

[revolutionary]

This entire project seems like a lot of investment with little profit potential. explorer11 has the right idea.

 

[space_dreamer]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4275<br /><br />Energia head Nikolai Sevastyanov wants the International Space Station (ISS) to become an international spaceport - while increasing the number of people crew on board to six next year. <br />Sevastyanov's plans are based around the debut of the ESA (European Space Agency) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) in 2007 and the Japanese H-II (HTV) transfer vehicle in 2009.<br /> <br />The ATV will have three times the capacity of the Russian Progress vehicle (increasing capacity of re-supplies to nine metric tons), but has been delayed several times due to software and engineering integration issues. <br />Supporting the increase in crew will be the launch of four manned Soyuz launches and two Progress re-supply missions in 2007, as Russia supports the handover of ISS supply missions to the ATV. <br /><br />'The launch of Europe's ATV [Automated Transfer Vehicle] has been scheduled for late 2007,' said Sevastyanov to the RIA news agency, who also noted the international future of the ISS, omitting mention of the United States, who's commitment to the ISS was 'uncertain'. <br /><br />'The ISS is evolving into an international spaceport for the Russians, the Europeans and the Japanese.' <br /><br />Sevastyanov also pointed out the importance of the ISS, with the need for it to become a centerpoint for tasks that can only be carried out in space. <br /><br />'There must be maintained a permanent human presence in space, and that’s the principal purpose behind construction of ISS. The space station will address a number of tasks,' he noted to the Energia official site.<br /><br />'Firstly, it will be an international spaceport. Secondly, ISS allows conducting basic research in space. Even today, space helps us to answer many questions ranging from weather forecasts to power issues. Thirdly, on board ISS we can try out many new technologies, which are either to

 

[revolutionary]

A great post space_dream, it re-inforces what I just said I believe. Its all been over-hyped, this thing will never be able to justify its exorbitant pricetag. If the U.S. is really seriously considering withdrawing its commitment to the ISS as the article you posted suggest, then perhaps the U.S. has more common sense than I'd given them credit for.

 

[space_dreamer]

It will be the US who loose out if they leave the project. The US spends all that money to build the ISS and then all the other space powers get the benefit of the station once it’s completed. <br /><br />I’m a Brit, so the idea of the ISS becoming a Russian / European / Japanese space complex with out the US sounds ok to me! <br /><br />Post 2016 if NASA wants to do research on the ISS they will have to pay Russia to let them uses The Destiny Lab! Hahaha<br />

 

[barf9]

An international Spaceport to where? It's got only one real destination, Earth, and I already live there. The 51 degree orbit will make it pretty useless for manned exploration missions, kinda hard for cargo delivery too. If I were the ESA or JAXA I might just save my lab modules for a new Stastion in a Orbit that might be on the way to somewhere (maybe the moon). I'm not saying the ISS hasn't done alot of good science but it's a dead end, you go up you come down, and we've been doing that since Apollo 17. NASA needs to focus on systems that can be modified for new missions of exploration, and I'm not a big fan of this Apollo on 'Roids that their plannig.

 

[barf9]

By 2016 the ISS wil be at the end of it's planned life cycle. I doubt it was designed to last much longer than that.

 

[john_316]

I think we should sell our half to the Russians and ESA and allow them to play with it when we are done or we can use EELV to add to it and make it a larger science lab with say perhaps 12-18 crew.<br /><br />They could always take it to a higher orbit I guess...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[barf9]

I really don't know if the ISS could be moved, are the airlocks that connect the modules structually sound enough to hold the station together under power. Besides it's been pointed out to me that the inclination of orbit not the altitude that's the problem withusing the ISS as a hub for lunar transport.

 

[strandedonearth]

If I'm not mistaken most of the penalty would be for Earth-to-ISS,with very little penalty for the ISS-toMoon leg, correct?