NASA to support ISS through 2020

radarredux · Jan 30, 2007

NASA's plans since the beginning of the VSE was for NASA to exit ISS support after 2016 (with all the money focused on the Moon, Mars, and Beyond). Today MSN is carrying a story that NASA now plans to stay until 2020. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16890498/ IMHO, this is important for groups like SpaceX who want to build a business around supporting ISS. It also plays into the Ares I vs. Ares IV debate. Previously some people (OK, maybe it was only me) raised the issue of why spend the money to develop the Ares I stand-alone vehicle when it would primarily be useful from 2014-2016 to fly Orion to ISS. After that, NASA could use two Ares IVs to do Lunar Orbit Rendezvous -- no need for Ares I. Supporting ISS through 2020 would give Ares I a longer shelf life. Also, abandoning ISS in 2016 would leave 2-4 years without US manned flight until the first Lunar launches. If maintaining a presense on ISS isn't too expensive, I think staying there until NASA has a solid presense on the Moon makes sense.

MeteorWayne · Jan 30, 2007

It was almost inevitible IMHO. Fact is, the scheduled lunar missions scheduled for 2012 to 2016 are not likely to take place that early. That'sonly 5-10 years away. Does anything think that is realistic since we have exactly squat developed, or even designed at this point? This ain't the 60's where the whole nation is dedicated to getting to the moon. This is the 00's with insufficient budgets, huge deficits and national debt, and no clear goal. So if the moon is going to slip, might as well support the space station. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Jan 30, 2007

If true, this is good news <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

halman · Jan 31, 2007

RadarRedux, Most people are fixated on going somewhere in space, and don't think of space itself as a destination. But microgravity manufacturing is going to play a large part in making space a profitable venture, I believe, and learning how to keep structures together, protect crews from radiation and micrometeors, and many other things is critical. We have a lot to learn just from the assembly of the International Space Station, not to mention the research that is carried out on board. The environment that it exists in is the same all over the Cosmos, for the most part, and learning how to live and work in that kind of environment is the first step in getting off of this rock. It would be extremely short-sighted, in my opinion, to stop involvement in the International Space Station at any time. Some day, there will be many space stations, if we truly are to become a space faring species. Things learned on the ISS will be a part of every one of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

tohaki · Jan 31, 2007

That is very good news. I have a question. Is there any reason why a station like the ISS can't just drop old modules in one end and add new ones in the other?

dreada5 · Jan 31, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Most people are fixated on going somewhere in space, and don't think of space itself as a destination. <hr /></blockquote> LEO is no longer a good enough destination for NASA! Space is their home and right now it seems like they've been FOREVER standing in the doorway! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> IMHO, NASA should complete ISS construction and then get the hell out of LEO into "deep space" (their destination), where they belong. All the microgravity scientific research, manufacturing, technology and ops maturity in LEO that you mention may be spearheaded by NASA but should be heavily supported by private industry in years to come. These activities should not dominate NASA's manned space program, exploring the solar system (with what we have now) should. I think its really cool that private industry are already competing for things like COTS to ISS - that's the future. If NASA continues going in circles around Earth, the young next generation (ie. tomorrow's taxpayers and professionals) will soon be instrumental in NASA's demise. I really hope this ISS decision does not jeopardise VSE's approx 2015 "get out of LEO" date!

josh_simonson · Jan 31, 2007

It would be stupid to build the Aries 1 and CEV, fly it a couple years, then mothball it for a few more waiting for lunar flights to commence. History shows that NASA pays for their rockets wether they fly or not, so having nothing to fly between 2016 and 2018 would be throwing money down a black hole. I also agree that this is great news for SpaceX, as well as Bigelow (who's modules are more likely to be used as ISS upgrades with the extended life of the station). This also improves the odds that ATV and HTV will fly on more than a couple missions, leveraging more off those development investments.

radarredux · Jan 31, 2007

> It would be extremely short-sighted, in my opinion, to stop involvement in the International Space Station at any time./i> The problem would occur if supporting ISS consumed too many resources to permit anything new. That has been the problem with STS, it has been much more expensive to operate than expected, and as a result there has been very little funding to develop new transportation systems. This is what some of us call "eating its young." My guess (and someone else said essentially the same thing earlier), is that the cost of not going to ISS for several years will be almost the same as going to ISS since NASA will need to maintain launch teams, facilities, contractors, etc. while waiting for the Lunar program to get rolling. If this is the case, you might as well go.

radarredux · Jan 31, 2007

> LEO is no longer a good enough destination for NASA!/i> I think that is a good way of putting it. NASA, IMHO, should be a pathfinder agency and not an operational support agency. NASA has established the path to LEO and now a space station, now it should move on to blaze new paths and let others fill in behind it.

halman · Feb 1, 2007

dreada5, For some reason, I find it difficult to believe that we will have construction and operation of orbital platforms down pat within the next 8 years. Getting back to the Moon is a critical goal, but we must avoid moving so fast that the private sector is unwilling to follow. Without private sector involvement in space, in areas such as materials extraction and processing, our off planet program is likely to stagger to a halt. Currently, there is a huge gap between NASA's routine activities and private sector activities. NASA has yet to develop a launch system that the private sector can afford to operate, and the private sector is no where near developing an orbital-capable launch system. Justifying spending billions of dollars a year solely for sending people further and further away from home is not likely to go over well with Congress and the public. Economic return is the long-term goal of federal spending in advanced technologies, and the space program has been spending money for over 40 years without any obvious and substantial returns. Throwing up a space station, and then turning it over to other nations, landing a few times on the Moon and then concentrating all of our energy on going to Mars is likely to convince many people that there is no possibility of a return on the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars. We would be wise to take it a little slower, and make sure that the private sector is keeping up with us, rather than reaching as far as we can as fast as we can. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

dreada5 · Feb 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />but we must avoid moving so fast that the private sector is unwilling to follow.<hr /></blockquote> I don't think all private sector are waiting to follow NASA. The agency has achieved a lot of amazing things in my time, such as going to the Moon (well not quite my time <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ), ISS and the MER's. But the private sector aren't waiting to follow NASA in doing these things. These firsts have been done and its only a matter of time before these are done again, just not by NASA. What types like Bigelow, Elon and Branson are doing today and tomorrow is just as exciting to me (and maybe others) , if not more so, than what NASA did 40 years ago when it made one small step for mankind! These guys are opening up space/LEO for all! I seriously believe unless NASA gets back to pushing human boundaries out in deep space asap, it will watch its limelight stolen over the next couple decades by the private sector. NASA's ISS operations won't be enough - firstly, by the frequent tourist sub-orbital hops and later the proliferation of private spacestations/voyages in LEO and maybe even lunar fly-bys.... and where there's no limelight, there's less attraction for high-priority, federal dollars! Private space missions & tourism will increasingly dominate LEO over the next few decades. If the US Gov't and NASA are unable/unwilling to get out of LEO, we will definitely see the gap close between routine activities for the nation's space program and routine activities for the exciting space tourism industry. For one its not like an LEO-hugging NASA can excite the public into building ANOTHER $100 billion station again... but Bigelow might with his self-constructed, cheaper, luxury spacehotels/spacelabs for disgruntled scientists and the rich/famous... and maybe even the promise of privately trailblazing a path to Mars with a ship full of celebrities!

MeteorWayne · Feb 1, 2007

I hope you're right, but it still takes massive bucks to get into space. Private industry has done a few barely suborbital flights. Since those? IIRC, the last manned suborbital flight was 2 1/4 years ago? What since then? Nada. Zilch, Squat. Zero. So things aren't exactly advancing rapidly into the future. So let's not throw NASA under the bus just yet, since they represent only one of two nations that regularly fly into space, even if it's only LEO. The other nation (China) has done it once, without a repeat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

mrmorris · Feb 1, 2007

"Private industry has done a few barely suborbital flights. Since those? IIRC, the last manned suborbital flight was 2 1/4 years ago? What since then? Nada. Zilch, Squat. Zero." I understand that you post was really launch-centric. However, Genesis being placed into orbit doesn't amount to more than 'Nada. Zilch, Squat. Zero.'? Also Falcon-1 was *launched*. If it only made it 45 seconds, that still about 20 times longer than the most recent SeaLaunch.

dreada5 · Feb 1, 2007

Things are moving forward. http://space.com/news/070201_venture_space.html When the first private orbital flight happens in the not too distant future, people including NASA (who'll probably still be stuck in LEO) will be as stunned as they were in June 2004!

MeteorWayne · Feb 1, 2007

Please notice the word "manned" in my post. Yes there have been many private launches, and that is great. All are spacecraft, no humans. Is that not what we are talking about here? The fact is, NASA is the only ones doing manned launches, even suborbital, in the US in over 2 years. Of course they do have the machines and the experince. We'll see what the future develops. I know at this time, if I were an astronaut flying to LEO or beyond in the US, I want NASA stamped on my boarding pass. So before we dismiss NASA, let's see anyone else safely launch a human into orbit before we dismantle the organization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Feb 1, 2007

"The other nation (China) has done it once, without a repeat." Shenzhou 6 and 7 make it twice, with Sehnzhou 8 scheduled for next year and more to come after that. Not a high flight rate granted, but technically far more advanced than anything private spaceflight has done. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 1, 2007

Thanks, Jon. My boo-boo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

dreada5 · Feb 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Why would anybody be stunned in 2004, by something that duplicated only a small part of the X-15 program from 40 years earlier? <hr /></blockquote> Several reasons me thinks, Because some didn't think it was possible. Because, the general public probably don't know the difference between sub-orbital and LEO. Because for the first time in history, a regular civilian aka Joe Bloggs ventured into SPACE, by himself... without a multi-billion dollar federal program behind him. Because it was achieved so soon and it's easy to see now that it won't take another 40 years for private industry to get to where ISS currently lives.

radarredux · Feb 1, 2007

> I hope you're right, but it still takes massive bucks to get into space. Private industry has done a few barely suborbital flights./i> Frequent suborbital commercial flights will generate experience, generate revenues that can be plowed into future R&D, and attract additional venture money. The fact that people are seriously talking about flying into space on private launch vehicles and visiting private orbital facilities is an amazing change from just five years ago. Certainly there is a very long way to go, but I see the emerging private space economy of today about where the personal computer economy was ~1975.

dreada5 · Feb 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So before we dismiss NASA, let's see anyone else safely launch a human into orbit before we dismantle the organization. <hr /></blockquote> Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing NASA. I think what NASA has achieved is very cool and I think it'd be a great place to develop one's career! But if NASA can't get out of LEO, I think it may want to avoid space "rush hour" in decades to come coz you can bet your bottom dollar (if thats the right term), it's going to get a whole lot busier up there! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

MeteorWayne · Feb 1, 2007

Fair enough and I hope you're right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

j05h · Feb 1, 2007

> Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing NASA. I think what NASA has achieved is very cool and I think it'd be a great place to develop one's career! But if NASA can't get out of LEO, I think it may want to avoid space "rush hour" in decades to come coz you can bet your bottom dollar (if thats the right term), it's going to get a whole lot busier up there! Please be clear, too, that NASA will never fly you as a private citizen into space. Unless you're a Saudi prince or Senator. Our only hope to fly as citizens is in developing the private sector's human spaceflight capabilities. If NASA is going to support ISS thru 2020, will that be as a budget line-item? Congress was discussing making the ISS into a national lab to separate it's maintenance (and future research) costs from NASA. This has two advantages: it gives NASA a huge break that allows it to fully pursue VSE and would put ISS in a position to do much more research than baselined. Making ISS into it's own "institute" makes a lot of sense. What are the implications of continuing funding station through NASA? Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

kdavis007 · Feb 1, 2007

I agree this is good news..

halman · Feb 2, 2007

dagas, You said, ' Why NASA has to develop cheap spaceflight for the private sector? Thats impossible.. private sector itself have to do it, but with space prizes, economic incentives, etc." I don't think that you quite understand the mission of a federal agency such as NASA. Developing the technology to access space safely, routinely, and cheaply is precisely what NASA was created for. (Ignoring the fact that it was a response to the Soviet advances in space flight.) Government has the responsibility to do the things that the private sector can't, or won't do, that are for the good of the whole population. Without the lessons that have been learned by NASA, it is unlikely that the private sector would ever go into space, because it is so expensive, and has no prospect of a return on the investment in the coming fiscal quarter. Had in not been for the military requiring the development of long range bombers, we would probably not have airline transportation, because it was the long range bomber designs that were adapted to civilian use that created the demand for airline transportation. If Congress had not been so shortsighted back in the late 1970's, a fleet of at least 7 space shuttles would have been built. Operating a fleet that size would have made space flight much cheaper, due to the economies of scale. Probably, if NASA had gotten what it wanted, by now the space shuttle would be operated by private industry, and we would already be back on the Moon. You can work so hard at saving money that you end up losing it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

dreada5 · Feb 2, 2007

True. But unless NASA figures out how to do more firsts like scramjet access to space or regular lunar ops next decade then it is running out goals to set the private sector. The future looks bright for private industry. Even if just a few of the spacex's, kistlers, t/spaces, virgin galactics(scaled) or bigelows are successful they will, through market competition, optimise "cheap" and "safe" systems for accessing and operating in LEO quicker and more efficiently than NASA bureaucracy ever could. And if development funding is cut for the Ares vehicles and the shuttle ceases ops in 2010 approx, then a planet-bound NASA will be relegated to relying heavily on COTS vehicles to operate its only remaining asset, ISS. Where that leaves other nation's space agencies following in NASA's wake, I haven't a clue. But IMHO I can see the big space theme of the next few decades being routine private access/operations in LEO.

NASA to support ISS through 2020

radarredux

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

halman

Guest

tohaki

Guest

dreada5

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

halman

Guest

dreada5

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

dreada5

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

dreada5

Guest

radarredux

Guest

dreada5

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

j05h

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

halman

Guest

dreada5

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page