ISS shutdown in 2015 ?

[tplank]

Itar Schmitar.<br /><br />Of course the government would never break the law. And I'm sure that the Clintons would never do business with the Chinese.<br /><br />...WAIT.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"To hell with the ESA then. 2015 is a long time from now,perhaps by then Russia or Japan or both nations will step in to fill the NASA gap. For just the cost of maintainence it would be a great bargain for a large and complete space station.<br />Heck, Japan might keep it going just to keep aerospace employment up. Japan is not shy about pumping excess money into high tech projects to subsidize the industry involved."<br /><br />The ISS cannot be operated without US involvement. ESA, JAXA, and RSA don't have the capabilities to control the US segment. Nor do they have the insight or ability to maintain or repair it.

 

[PistolPete]

This is not a reply to you Jim, just a general post.<br /><br />I understand that negative emotions run high when in regards to the ISS. I know it's a huge drain on the NASA budget right now because it requires the Shuttle to fly up components and to resupply it, but how much could it really cost per year once it is completed to resupply it using less expensive spacecraft such as the SpaceX Dragon or the SpaceHab ARCTUS? It can't cost that much compared to the cost of building it.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that if NASA was really trying to save money then it would stop ISS construction immediately, end the STS program and go full throttle with Constellation. It doesn't make sense to throw billions and billions of dollars further into a project and not keep it long enough to get any real return on the investment. If we've spent billions to build it then we should at least use it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Resupply is not the largest expense. The manpower on the ground and not just the control team

 

[thereiwas]

I agree with PistolPete. Stop now.<br /><br />There is something to be learned from just going through the exercise of building it, but I think we have passed the point of diminishing returns on that.<br /><br />

 

[crix]

Oh, the irony. I guess we will give the ISS to China, if only for cynicism's sake.<br /><br />No, look. Perhaps my earlier posts were too curt. The Chinese wouldn't want it for one. A NASA scientist on another message board informed that it would almost be impossible to switch over the responsibilities from the US to another country. We have crypto codes on the computers for example. I'm no ITAR expert but I suspect these regulations are taken seriously. Especially with China.... ya know, Big China on the rise, growing military.<br /><br />I don't want to get off topic here. I cannot in a million years imagine China owning the ISS 10 years from now.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>it would stop ISS construction immediately<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That train came and went with Columbia disaster. That was the right time to stop it.<br /><br />However, obseve, that the "billions going into it" is basically for a large part just payrolls of people involved in building and operating the thing. So if you would stop everything now, you would either have to a) find something useful to do for all of them b) let them go and "save billions", however that works within your government

 

[chyten]

What makes anybody think that NASA would sell ISS to <i>Chinese</i>? Or that Chinese would want it? They do not even have any manned hardware that interfaces with ISS! Whereas there is another party which has all necessary hardware, does want ISS, owns part of it, and <b>already</b> uses it as a revenue-producing asset (unlike NASA). In case you had not figured it out, it is Russian Space Agency.<br /><br />There is no way Russia will let ISS go to waste. And space politics being what they are, Russia most likely won't have to pay US anything. They will simply inherit it when NASA bails out.<br /><br />Occasionally I read Russian publications re: ISS. They already are referring to it as "our space station".

 

[tplank]

crix<br /><br />Truly, I was just trying to make a humerous comment on the state of things. Then after you were so dismissive, I decided to poke you with a stick.<br /><br />I do think the gubmint will do pretty much anything for money. If it were in the net long term interests of the rich and powerful in our formerly great nation, then they would find a way to sell it to the Chinese.<br /><br />That said, you made the truly telling point: they wouldn't want it. I have no doubt you are correct on that point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"OTOH, since the world is going back to BDB's instead of things with wings on them, you will be able to lift THE ENTIRE ISS in ONE launch, decreasing the cost by orders of magnitude."<br /><br />By increasing launch vehicle development cost by 2 orders on magnitude. ISS will weigh close to 500,000lbs<br /><br />"It is time to start engineering people out of the ISS support. "<br /><br />That has to be done at the beginning, too late now

 

[chyten]

<b>I do think the gubmint will do pretty much anything for money.</b><br /><br />If that were true, all Space Shuttles would be plastered with ads and would carry paying passengers. <br /><br />Sorry, but "[US] gubmint will do pretty much anything for money" is so far from true, it is "not even wrong". If anything, US government has an amazing ability to ignore simple and sensible sources of revenue sitting right in front of it. <br /><br />Russian government, OTOH, really does match your description. <br /><br /><b>If it were in the net long term interests of the rich and powerful in our formerly great nation, then they would find a way to sell it to the Chinese.</b><br /><br />That may be true, but in order for that to be in "net long term interests", China would have to be something very different from what it is.

 

[tplank]

Well, I totally agree. What I should've said is that Americans acting corporately anything for money. The government is pretty abysmal in acting on opportunties as you point out.<br /><br />Hmmm. How much would they have to charge to sell a seat on the shuttle and make it a revenue generator? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[crix]

This thread is going OT. Go to free space to make political insinuations.<br /><br />NASA is not allowed to make money selling seats.

 

[erioladastra]

"There is no way Russia will let ISS go to waste. And space politics being what they are, Russia most likely won't have to pay US anything. They will simply inherit it when NASA bails out. <br /><br />Occasionally I read Russian publications re: ISS. They already are referring to it as "our space station". "<br /><br />To save a lot of debate - it is not possible. The ISS is not like a car that you can give them the keys and an instructional manual and pocket the sale price. Whether you like it or not, to keep ISS operating requires a huge amount of NASA infrastructure. No, you cann just close the hatches and forget about/seperate the USOS segment. Russia is totally dependant on the US and vice versa. No other country is going to come over and pay NASA for us to run it and you can't ship the whole infra structure over to Russia or China. Just not an option. And no, it is not because NASA doesn't want to share or government rules (let alone export control that would prevent it) - it is just the way the systems are designed and integrated.

 

[erioladastra]

"Itar Schmitar. "<br /><br />Nope, at least here it is enforced pretty tightly. In fact a scientific experiement was canceled this week since giving the Russians the data would violate export control.

 

[PistolPete]

Actually, I wasn't advocating stopping construction on the ISS, quite the opposite. I have a "smoke 'em if you got 'em" philosophy when it comes to the ISS. The ISS construction train gained too much momentum a decade ago to stop so I know it isn't going to stop now. Seeing as how its completion is inevitable, then why not use it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[askold]

"Seeing as how its completion is inevitable, then why not use it?"<br /><br />Possibly - because nobody can figure out what to use it for. Do you think the US would give up a $50B laboratory if there was some significant value in it? The fact that the US would walk away from a $50B investment should convince even the most Pollyannaish that there's nothing there, there.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<The ISS cannot be operated without US involvement. ESA, JAXA, and RSA don't have the capabilities to control the US segment. Nor do they have the insight or ability to maintain or repair it.><br /><br />According to the article, European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain implies the only issue is money.<br /><br />So who should I believe, you or him? Hmm...

 

[crix]

I'd believe Jim, and not the politician who is simplifying the matter for the media's sake. The problem is money for the USA too, in fact. We can't keep paying for this station and do anything else at the same time. We have to dump it. Eyes forward, it's alright! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> No regrets.

 

[jimfromnsf]

<i>***Ad Hominems Deleted***</i>

 

[tplank]

OT to bring up the political context all this stuff exists in? Get a grip dude.<br /><br />And for the record, I'm not saying that the laws aren't enforced. I am saying if it suited the right people, that law would be changed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">According to the article, European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain implies the only issue is money.</font>/i><br /><br />If life were only that simple. Money is usually necessary but rarely sufficient to solve a problem.<br /><br />However, if ESA or other ISS members really feel compelled to continue with an orbital space station, I am sure Bigelow would be happy to sell them product or services.</i>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> According to the article, European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain implies the only issue is money. <br /><br />If life were only that simple. Money is usually necessary but rarely sufficient to solve a problem. <br /><br />However, if ESA or other ISS members really feel compelled to continue with an orbital space station, I am sure Bigelow would be happy to sell them product or services. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. Right, money is not the only problem for ESA, Roskosmos or JAXA to take over control of the ISS. However, it is a firm stopping point that the media can easily understand and digest. ESA would require 4-5 times the budget they are currently spending on their entire human spaceflight activity to run the ISS. And I am not even calculating what the multiple for Roskosmos or JAXA would be.<br /><br />2. ESA, JAXA or Roskosmos would NEVER buy Bigelow modules. The reason is very simple: human spaceflight is primarily undertaken to provide a benefits (beside the more ideological "science output") to their respective home country's or home countries' high technology industries. Why should ESA (respectively its memberstates) pay 500 million USD to a US private company if it can pay 2 billion EUR to European industry and with the second option employ hundreds of engineers and scientists as well as generate additional jobs at suppliers to the prime contractors and generate tax money from the investment? <br /><br />3. Don't worry, ESA will not stop its human spaceflight program after 2015. They will either contribute to Constellation in some way (very likely) or they go their own way with some other program (maybe a small Salyut type space station?) - (very unlikely).

 

[jimfromnsf]

"ESA would require 4-5 times the budget they are currently spending on their entire human spaceflight activity to run the ISS."<br /><br />It doesn't matter how much money ESAhas, it can run the ISS without NASA and its contractors,

 

[j05h]

<i>> And for the record, I'm not saying that the laws aren't enforced. I am saying if it suited the right people, that law would be changed.</i><br /><br />That is much more logical than poo-pooing export control. ITAR exists for very good reason. Is it a PITA for space projects? Everyone says so. In truth, it's just a bunch of paperwork, and early involvement (with AST I think) can greatly simplify the process. <br /><br />If some interested party needed the actual law changed, of course it could be lobbied. This doesn't change ITAR's basic goal, making a narrow portal for potential dual-use technology. Some kind of export regime is essentially unavoidable with space technology. SeaLaunch takes an interesting approach and completely separates the Russian and US crews for their offshore Zenit flights.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>