ISS shutdown in 2015 ?

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It doesn't matter how much money ESAhas, it can run the ISS without NASA and its contractors,</font>/i><br /><br />I assume you meant "<i>can't</i> run the ISS". With enough money <i>and time</i> most technical challenges can be overcome. The other ISS members could hire Lockheed & Boeing contractors, they could build additional monitoring facilities, they could train new people, they could probably enter additional sharing arrangements with NASA for NASA services, etc.<br /><br />However, that would take a lot of time, a lot of money, and has been pointed out by others, a lot of political capital to send European money to the US. Add to this the fact that ISS will probably start getting creaky about that time with more spare parts needed more often. Then the partners would probably need to take responsibility for de-orbiting ISS, which may be a very difficult challenge considering how difficult it was to build and how large it is.<br /><br />I just can't see this happening.</i>

 

[franontanaya]

Meh... Couldn't they recycle some modules? I guess they'll need to do some manned work to disassemble that behemoth before throwing it into the atmosphere, so maybe they can scrap the life support and manned operations modules, which I think they will have fulfilled any purpose they could fulfill by 2015, then attach some cheap yet power hungry scientific instruments to the ISS solar panels, upload new software and maybe add a little ion thruster to keep it over our heads. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> I guess they'll need to do some manned work to disassemble that behemoth before throwing it into the atmosphere</font>/i><br /><br />I've often seen assembly plans and schedules for ISS (which varied a little over time as the priorities and final configurations changed). I have to assume that NASA has a disassembly plan too, but I haven't seen it. Considering how many flights, EVAs, and years it took to build, I have to believe it will take a fair amount of time and effort to disassemble and deoribit safely.<br /><br />Does anyone have any knowledge of ISS decommissioning plans?</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

By using logic, it would be the same as MIR, since there is no vehicle to disassemble it. Just ATV's and progresses full of propellant

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">By using logic, it would be the same as MIR</font>/i><br /><br />ISS is considerably larger than MIR. Would the same process work for both platforms?</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

It is the only available

 

[alokmohan]

Right.

 

[franontanaya]

Meh, they could attach a chainsaw to the Canadarm and chop a few limbs off. <br /><br />No, seriously, ISS will weight four times the weight of MIR, over 400 tons, and it isn't at all so tightly packed as MIR. Enough controversy they had with the usefulness of it to risk spreading its debris along half Earth. Better if it goes down without making too much noise, like "this module was too old, it had to go, no drama, just the schedule". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> "this module was too old, it had to go, no drama, just the schedule".</i><br /><br />Disconnecting modules from ISS is unlikely to occur. They are to tightly integrated once assembled, the biggest problem being external hookups between units. <br /><br />ISS could be put down in the South Pacific, just like Mir, with no problems. Hopefully it will have a long, productive life beforehand. <br /><br />I think this whole "we're shuttign it down in 2015" is pandering and positioning. NASA can't afford the operational costs and is looking for help from the partners. It will continue to be utilized one way or another at least into the early '20s.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>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.<<<br /><br />NASA has abandoned several very worthwhile projects in the past. Just ask Burt Rutan about the X-34. Moreover, if no productive use for the ISS can be identified, it's unlikely that such a purpose can be identified for human flight to the moon or Mars, and it is very unlikely that Congress would approve an even larger sum for this. I'm a space enthusiast, but even I would not throw good money after bad. If we want to go to the moon, I suggest we first prove that we can make human spaceflight productive in LEO.