Plan B for future of ISS?

[tap_sa]

Should it happen that US decides not to live up to it's promise to help finishing ISS then:<br /><br />1) what's in the exit-clause of ISS agreement? Is there anykind of monetary retribution to ISS partners?<br /><br />2) what will be the fate of existing station parts lying somewhere in KSC? Is there any realistic chance of some kind of ad hoc transport using Ariane, some Russian LV or maybe buy EELV launch? I know bare LV isn't enough, something is needed to maneuver the part at ISS and keep it alive while enroute, how hard it would be to convert something to do this, say, Soyuz service module? Send a Progress or Soyuz to snatch and tug the payload? Or are the manufactured ISS parts as good as junk without Shuttle?<br /><br />2a) would US abandon ISS completely? (I'd imagine wanting free Soyuz rides would be a bit too much wishful thinking)<br /><br />2b) if US opts to quit ISS entirely what would be the fate of US parts in orbit? Finders keepers?

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Difficult questions, but interesting to explore....<br /><br />I doubt it will be possible to rejig the various modules on earth to fly on different boosters. Two problems arise, first is that these modules have been designed to fit in the Shuttle. You would have to design a spacetug and automatic docking system for them to reach the ISS. And the payload shroud of an expendable LV is completly different then the enviroment of the Shuttle. I don't know if the modules would be able to cope with the difference.<br /><br />It might be possible to change some of the instruments which deliver most science towards the FGB-2, which can be launched independently from Shuttle. <br /><br />If the US abandons the ISS now it will become difficult to increase the crew size of the ISS above 3. First for clear financial reasons. Other countries would need to take over control of the ISS and carry the burden of day to day operations. It would be dependant on Progress and HTV for logistical missions, and the flight rate of these vehicles is, not yet, high enough to support a permanent crew of 3 or even 6. <br /><br />Another problem would be the gyroscopes, I remember reading somewhere that these are to small for Progress and HTV, so if they break, there is no way of getting them to the ISS anymore. Which might be a major problem for continuity of the ISS.<br /><br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2b) if US opts to quit ISS entirely what would be the fate of US parts in orbit? Finders keepers?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> the shortest question but potentially the most serious one, because the parts wont STAY in orbit. Whats the original plan for deorbiting the thing ? There had to be one, right ?

 

[erioladastra]

If Russia is anywhere close to Mars in the next decade - I will buy you dinner. China is too early to predict.

 

[tomnackid]

Orrery, your a kneejerk libertarian wannabe. I know from your other posts that you think the best way for the US to advance in the world is by becoming a bunch of lying, cheating, bullying thugs who piss on everyone around them. I'm guessing your about 20-something if that and don't have much knowledge of the world around you set let me give you a little history lesson. Its been done before--Imperial Rome, the Aztecs, the fascitst, the Marxists, the NAZIs, yadda yadda yadda. What do all of these has-been and would be empires all have in common? The people around them got so pissed off at their dishonesty, arrogance and aggression that they banded together to bring them down. Never mind that in many cases those people ended up worse off than they were before (the fall of the Roman and Aztec empires comes to mind) if you push people too far they lash out even if it goes against their best interest. Yes the US can probably beat any nation in a war, but it can't beat EVERY nation in a war. I recommend that you get your head out of Grand Theft Auto for a few minutes and read something called "The Pict Song" by a guy named Kipling.<br /><br />Whether the space station is a worthless piece of junk or not is not the question here. The question is what is the US's contractual obligations for getting out of the station project. And anyway the station is NOT keeping the US from going to Mars or farther. Money is there. We are spending the equivalent of NASA's yearly budget every month in Iraq. How did we happen to come up with the money to fight a war but we can't finish a stupid little space station? Well, for one thing there is no oil in LEO and Haliburton is not an aerospace company. I don't want to get into a political argument here, but no matter what side of the fence you are on in regards to the Iraq War you have to admit that somehow the money was found to do it. A LOT of money.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[tomnackid]

Ooooooooo, what a witty comeback! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i bet it took hours for you to come up with that one! All in all its about what i expected from the likes of you.

 

[tomnackid]

"You don't honestly think that /*Profanity Deleted*/ post..."<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />My my, keep a civil tongue junior. And here I though everyone was calling you a master debater...maybe I just heard wrong <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I guess I hit a little too close to home for your comfort. I apologize for overtaxing your faculties and getting you all worked up. <br /><br />And yes, I DO think my post merits an intelligent reply, but I won't hold my breath waiting for one from you! lol

 

[j05h]

(trying to drag thread back on-topic)<br />1 - i'm not sure what the exit clauses are. Whatever the contracts do say, there is a political reality that has to be satisfied as well. One question to ask - could we abandon ISS and launch FGB2, Kibo and Columbus to 28.5 degrees? It'd be servicable from Kourou and Cape Canaveral.<br /><br />2 - I am in disagreement with many other posters, I think that the components, with some $$$ and ingenuity, can be launched to ISS or another station/orbit. It's not impossible to "clone" the Shuttle cargo bay. I've also advocated ground-integrating Kibo, Columbus and Node2, we could even do an externaltank-station with those components at 28.5.<br /><br />2A - If the US walks from ISS, it will be deorbitted relatively quickly. I'm not sure the Russians will run it themselves. <br /><br />2B - the US segment is still our property and responsibility. If Russia wanted to keep the station intact, maybe we could negotiate Unity/Destiny for Soyuz seats. I'm not sure when salvage law takes over.<br /><br />I really like the idea of starting over at 28.5. I like the idea of a 5 degree orbit accessed from Kourou and SeaLaunch moreso. Another option is using a tether or ion engine to move ISS to 28.5 - an ion engine would (IIRC) only require 10-20 tons of xenon and several years to do it. (not gonna happen...)<br /><br />PS - Orrery - please tone the rhetoric down or take it Freespace.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Orrery, your a kneejerk libertarian wannabe."</font><br /><br />OK, I kinda get the 'libertarian' reference, but it's a stretch. He doesn't reflect my thinking and I'm a libertarian. He believes that 'he who shouts the loudest and pushes the hardest gets to make the rules.' That's hardly a rational libertarian attitude. Just because you're loud and aggressive doesn't make you right.<br /><br />Other than that, I agree with you, though we can debate whether the ISS is of any value or not. Ultranationalism is a dangerous and wrongheaded approach to international relations. Sure, as a Libertarian, I'm opposed to involvement in the affairs of other countries without a specific threat to the country I live in, but this certainly doesn't exclude the possibility and desirability of cooperative ventures such as ISS. Of course, it would be better if it were being done by a private company, but that's another subject.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Swamp, that's why I said "Libertarian Wannabe" rather than just Libertarian. To me a wannabe someone who uses the Libertarian banner as an excuse to be obnoxious, arrogant and selfish. You know, the types who never take Libertarianism beyond reading "The Fountainhead" as a freshman in college. To be honest I think libertarianism is generally a good thing and one of the best things to come out of the enlightenment and western liberal tradition. I also think that government is a tool that has been around since humans have been humans and its foolish to throw away a tool just because some have used it badly in the past. <br /><br />But anyhow, lets get this thread back on topic shall we?

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Orrey.<br /><br />the nature of intergovernmental organisations and agreements is that nobody owns it. So the ISS is not a US project done with the assistance<br /><br />article 2 of the agreement says<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Partners will join their efforts, under the lead role of the United States for overall management and coordination, to create an integrated international Space Station. The United States and Russia, drawing on their extensive experience in human space flight, will produce elements which serve as the foundation for the international Space Station. The European Partner and Japan will produce elements that will significantly enhance the Space Station's capabilities. Canada's contribution will be an essential part of the Space Station. This Agreement lists in the Annex the elements to be provided by the Partners to form the international Space Station.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It says that the US has a lead role in management and coordination. Not that it is a US project.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

hardly, I would say. There is a difference in managing and owning.... (you know managers run the thing, while the shareholders own it) In this case the shareholders are the treaty states.....<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">2A - If the US walks from ISS, it will be deorbitted relatively quickly. I'm not sure the Russians will run it themselves.</font>/i><br /><br />Recently it was rumored that the expected budget reduction from STS operations during the last few years before retirement probably will not occur, and this is creating a $5 billion budget shortfall (or cost overrun).<br /><br />This leads me to wonder what is an accurate prediction of on-going ISS support going to cost post 2010? While there may be technical options for regularly boosting the station, ferrying crew to and from ISS, ferrying experiment supplies to and from, ferrying ISS consumables and other supplies to and from ISS, etc., has someone (US, ESA, Russia) actually budgeted for these items?</i>

 

[juliemac]

Would the Admins PLEASE blacklist that jerk? He is irratating and annoying.<br />Or is he just here to Troll? If thats the case, then let him go to the Jerry Springer show.

 

[barrykirk]

We are trying to calm him down. I think he has the potential to be a positive contributor, but I don't think he's at the point yet where he needs to be blacklisted.

 

[spacefire]

he has made planet, while you're just an atom. I'd say, spend some time here before making such demands on the moderators. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"But anyhow, lets get this thread back on topic shall we?"</font><br /><br />Gotcha <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />...and agree. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

While NASA will be reluctant to let other countries take over effective control of the ISS, if the US withdraws China would be the logical new partner. It is the only country that currently has resources to add to a space venture, and its new generation of launchers would have the logistical capability, particularly if combined with an ESA space tug. NASA's repeated snubbing of Chinese interest in ISS is unfortunate. The most valuable role of ISS is not science, but the level of cooperation and undersanding it has engendered between the US and Russia. A similar close releationship with China would help diffuse what may otherwise become an adversarial relationship.<br /><br />Russia has the technical capability to suppport ISS as well and might provide some additional funding if the US withdraws.<br /><br />But if we allow the ISS to deorbit, most Americans will feel we have just wasted $40 billion, and will be very unlikely to willingly fund further human spaceflight.

 

[lampblack]

Re: "no monetary retribution"<br /><br />Please look at this bit more closely:<br /><font color="yellow">5. Withdrawal by any Partner State shall not affect that Partner State's continuing rights and obligations under Articles 16, 17, and 19, unless otherwise agreed in a withdrawal agreement pursuant to paragraph 2 or 3 above.</font><br /><br />It would appear that the U.S. is perfectly free to withdraw any time it likes -- but such a decision would not eliminate any of its "continuing rights and obligations."<br /><br />Note the word "obligations." Although the U.S. can leave the ISS at any point and hand the keys over to the Russians, the U.S.'s obligations under the agreement persist.<br /><br />We're free to leave. But we're still obligated, whether we stay or go. If we leave, it's going to cost out the whazoo. There will indeed be "retribution" -- to the tune of billions of dollars.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">After reading Articles 16, 17, and 19... I have absolutely no idea what the heck you're talking about. Did you read the three articles being referrenced?</font><br /><br />I tried not to -- Lord knows, I did. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />You're right (in a limited sort of way) -- the question regarding "retribution" is not as clear-cut as I made out in my earlier post. But neither is the question of whether the U.S. can simply cut and run as clear-cut as you suggested.<br /><br />My essential point stands: If we quit ISS, the U.S. government will find itself sunk in litigation or -- perhaps worse -- diplomatic negotiations. Either way, we'll end up having to cough up some sizable portion of the billions of dollars the Europeans and Japanese have invested in hardware that would never make orbit without the services of a functional (and flying) shuttle orbiter.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">My essential point stands: If we quit ISS, the U.S. government will find itself sunk in litigation or -- perhaps worse -- diplomatic negotiations. Either way, we'll end up having to cough up some sizable portion of the billions of dollars</font>/i><br /><br />In "The Memo" by Griffin regarding proposed OMB cuts, he asked about litigation issues. Organizations make decisions based on a wide range of issues, including dollar figures, perception, removal of distractions, how much up-front costs a plan has versus total costs, projected revenue streams, etc.<br /><br />As a very simple example, potential impending budget cuts may force a plan that cuts spending today but creates conditions that cost more in the long run. We could say "That's stupid; this decsions costs more", but sometimes less than optimal global decisions must be made because of immediate pressing needs.</i>