Poll: Do We Need A New International Space Station?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Poll: Do We Need A New International Space Station?

  • Yes! Bring it down: The International Space Station is old and busted, with malfunctions like the

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Perhaps: The space station is an amazing engineering marvel, but its oldest component dates back t

    Votes: 10 13.7%
  • No! Keep ISS flying: The space station has been doing just fine since 1998 and was built to be main

    Votes: 60 82.2%

  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnotherHeroFlowValve

Guest
What we need are more sophisticated modules (like a centrifugal sleeping mod so we can start to see if we can sleep in a mod that imitates gravity). We made the station capable of having modules added and replaced... lets start leveraging that part of its structure instead of building a whole new one.....
 
W

Windbourne

Guest
elroy_jetson":3rz1wh38 said:
The ISS is the only manned spaceflight destination we have, and will remain so until we have a pro-space administration that has the testicular fortitude to actually establish deep space objectives, and to develop the hardware to reach such objectives. Since that won't be happening any time soon, the ISS is now essential for maintaining nominal manned space flight capabilities. ISS must be retained.

The problem is that we have that RIGHT NOW. It is ppl that are fighting moving launches to private space, and allowing NASA money to flow into deep space objectives that are KILLING that dream.
The good news is that regardless of what those ppl do, private space will continue. Musk will build his human rated vehicle, as well as as the F X.
And I have no doubt that Bigelow will get his space station up there as well.
Sadly, with this senate bill, it will slow us down getting to the moon, but we will get there within 15 years (the senate bill will slow things down by 5 years).
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
Windbourne":19lwxda4 said:
elroy_jetson":19lwxda4 said:
The ISS is the only manned spaceflight destination we have, and will remain so until we have a pro-space administration that has the testicular fortitude to actually establish deep space objectives, and to develop the hardware to reach such objectives. Since that won't be happening any time soon, the ISS is now essential for maintaining nominal manned space flight capabilities. ISS must be retained.

The problem is that we have that RIGHT NOW. It is ppl that are fighting moving launches to private space, and allowing NASA money to flow into deep space objectives that are KILLING that dream.
The good news is that regardless of what those ppl do, private space will continue. Musk will build his human rated vehicle, as well as as the F X.
And I have no doubt that Bigelow will get his space station up there as well.
Sadly, with this senate bill, it will slow us down getting to the moon, but we will get there within 15 years (the senate bill will slow things down by 5 years).
If constellation is cancelled, I don't see us going back to the moon in 15 years. It will likely be an asteroid, unless the next president decides to change the plan once again.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
Lancelot_64":2osdquyx said:
My comment is intended to provoke thought only..
Wouldnt it be fun to equip the station for beyond earth space travel?
Add on the required modules and send her to orbit the moon or perhaps another exotic location.
IMO this is a facinating possibilty.. what's needed?
Navigation and propulsion modules perhaps..
If large scale ships are ever to exist they will likely resemble the ISS, however, the assembly time and
expense will have to be greatly reduced (if even possible).
I've been imagining the Orion vehicle mated to an ISS standard module or two for improved habitability on long duration missions, what they're planning seems kind of small, to me, for a Mars run.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
www.spaceflightnow.com : Engineers assess space station's structural integrity
BY STEPHEN CLARK

Posted: September 13, 2010

While politicians in Washington debate the future of America's space program, engineers across the globe are dutifully verifying the International Space Station can safely survive another two decades in orbit.

The extension of the space station through at least 2020 is a key tenet in the Obama administration's NASA budget proposal. It's also one of the least controversial.

The $100 billion outpost has been under construction for nearly 12 years, and officials previously penciled in 2015 as the end of its mission. But a retirement that soon would cut much of the station's potential scientific and engineering value just a half-decade after it was finally completed.

Announced by the White House in February, the proposed continuation of ISS operations was met with widespread praise. All of the project's international partners are in favor of the extension.

The decision sparked a one-of-a-kind engineering effort to certify the space station to operate until 2028, the 30th anniversary of the launch of the first element of the complex.

"That's 30 years after we launched the first piece," said Kirk Shireman, NASA's deputy space station program manager. "Some of our experts said that's about as much as we think we'll get. So far, we haven't seen any show-stoppers."
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
Who were the 139 people who think that we should just throw away a $100 billion station?
 
P

planetling

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":cw50ouw5 said:
Who were the 139 people who think that we should just throw away a $100 billion station?
I woud like to know too.

Spirit and Opportunity were slated to last a few to 6 months. Voyagers will have lasted about a half a century, give or take, before fuel runs out.

So it's really true when they say "they don't build 'em like they used too"? :eek:

I'm glad that at least some people with smarts have decided to keep IIS operational well beyond the initial retirement date. But I also believe that we should be building another space station to send to Mars orbit. The IIS could serve as living quarters while building the next-gen station.
 
R

raptorborealis

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":v4rvst3i said:
Who were the 139 people who think that we should just throw away a $100 billion station?
People who have the maturity to understand that budgets are limited. A billion, 5 billion or 10 billion more a year for the ISS is that much less for other projects.

Leadership is about making choices and not pandering to kids who want everything.
 
K

kk434

Guest
raptorborealis":d6ocd5j9 said:
Yuri_Armstrong":d6ocd5j9 said:
Who were the 139 people who think that we should just throw away a $100 billion station?
People who have the maturity to understand that budgets are limited. A billion, 5 billion or 10 billion more a year for the ISS is that much less for other projects.

Leadership is about making choices and not pandering to kids who want everything.
Throwing away a $100 billion station just to save some money is like throwing away your new SUV just to save the gas money.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
raptorborealis":1v95m0dd said:
Yuri_Armstrong":1v95m0dd said:
Who were the 139 people who think that we should just throw away a $100 billion station?
People who have the maturity to understand that budgets are limited. A billion, 5 billion or 10 billion more a year for the ISS is that much less for other projects.

Leadership is about making choices and not pandering to kids who want everything.
You've got to be kidding me. We just got this thing built and there's the possibility of adding more ambitious modules like the CAM later on. They can now do their science work at 100% efficiency and now we should get rid of it? How is this "pandeirng to kids who want everything"?
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
If we can't keep a simple space station in earth orbit functioning how the heck do people think we should be building space ships to go to Mars or an asteroid?

Again my option of choice was not listed. Our next space station should be the moon.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
If we can't support a substantial LEO infrastructure at less than $1 million per seat to LEO, if we can't make RCS valves that don't leak, if we can't make even make QDs and nuts and bolts that work after being in space a few years, why are we even talking about going to Mars? We need to be realistic. Start with what we have and build on it. If we can't support ISS and expand it we might as well give up on human spaceflight.

Constellation abandoned everything we had built over 30 years, both ISS and Shuttle. Shuttle has been lost permanently. And the Bush administration eliminated the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, the only technological development that had some potential for making human spaceflight feasible. We cannot afford anything that doesn't produce income greater than its cost. Anyone who doesn't believe that should try to convince their neighbors to vote for higher taxes. It won't happen.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
http://www.nasa.gov : International Partners Discuss Space Station Extension And Use
Sep. 22, 2010

John Yembrick

WASHINGTON -- The International Space Station partner agencies met Tuesday, Sept. 21, by videoconference to discuss continuation of space station operations into the next decade and its use as a research laboratory.

The Multilateral Coordination Board (MCB) meeting included senior representatives from NASA, the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos), and the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The MCB meets periodically to ensure coordination of station operations and activities among the partners.

The MCB was pleased to learn that the government of Japan has approved continuing space station operations beyond 2016. Coupled with the approval of the government of the Russian Federation for continuation to 2020, this progress is indicative of the strength of the station partnership and the successful use of station.

ESA and CSA are working with their respective governments to reach consensus about the continuation of the station. NASA also is continuing to work with the U.S. Congress to complete the necessary procedures to extend station operations consistent with the presidential budget request.

The MCB also noted the benefits to future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit through enhanced station research, technology development and other opportunities.

Each partner agency reaffirmed its commitment to gaining the maximum return from station with increasing the operational efficiency. On-going research with potential societal impacts includes:

-- NASA and the National Institutes of Health recently announced three new biomedical experiments using the station's unique microgravity facilities to improve human health on Earth. The experiments will use the station to study how bones and the immune system weaken in space as part of NIH’s new BioMed-ISS program.

-- CSA will focus its life science research program on mitigating health risks associated with spaceflight. More specifically, these health experiments and activities will monitor crew health and deliver health care on space missions, develop exercise, etc.

http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng

-- ESA just started a fluid physics experiment in the Microgravity Science Glovebox onboard the station's Columbus module that is of high interest to material scientists. The experiment uses advanced optical diagnostics to investigate the transformation of particles to aggregates due to density fluctuations in a mixture. The ESA experiment demonstrates a new capability to reverse and fine-tune the aggregation process; such control may yield a significant potential impact on fabrication of micro-structured materials such as photonic crystals.

http://www.esa.int/spaceflight

-- Roscosmos continues experimental programs aimed at human’s adaptation to future long-term expeditions. Effects of the flight conditions on the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system and bones are being carefully investigated in dedicated medical experiments. Other research being conducted includes plantation of wheat and vegetables followed by genetic, microbiological and biochemical tests of plants.

http://www.federalspace.ru

-- Japan's externally mounted X-Ray camera monitors more than 1,000 X-ray sources in space, including black holes and neutron stars. The instrument scans the entire sky in X-ray wavelengths and downlinks data to be distributed through the Internet to research groups around the world. Since last October, it has issued more than 50 alerts for the X-ray transient phenomena.

http://www.mext.go.jp/english

All of the partners also recognize the key role of the space station in inspiring students around the world to learn about science, technology, engineering and mathematics. More than 30 million students have participated in human spaceflight though communications downlinks and interactive experiments with station astronauts.

For more information about the space station, visit NASA on the Web at:

http://www.nasa.gov/station
 
A

aaron38

Guest
Valcan":354j53vv said:
And also any future station need a higher orbit so we arent spending tens of millions if not more on station keeping every dang year.
Not so sure about that. The cost of maintaining a station's orbit should be baselined using VASIMR station keeping, not chemical. I hope the 200kW engine is installed on ISS next year. That's a huge part of keeping it up to 2020.

So if station keeping is much cheaper, then a lower orbit that allows more payload delivery may be more practical, if only a fraction of the propellant mass is now required.
 
S

SteveCNC

Guest
there are two problems with using vasimr engines on the ISS , the engines produce very little thrust so any needed adjustments in orbit will take a long time to complete and most experiments in the ISS don't want a long thrust period or the vibrations included . Plus the fact that they require a lot of power 200kw you say ? And one more thing it isn't as if a vasimr engine doesn't use up anything , it uses argon gas .

I understand why the ISS is in the orbit it's in but I do think a more permanent booster would be in order rather than getting pushes from the soyuz .
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
aaron38":10zb5x6r said:
Valcan":10zb5x6r said:
And also any future station need a higher orbit so we arent spending tens of millions if not more on station keeping every dang year.
Not so sure about that. The cost of maintaining a station's orbit should be baselined using VASIMR station keeping, not chemical. I hope the 200kW engine is installed on ISS next year. That's a huge part of keeping it up to 2020.

So if station keeping is much cheaper, then a lower orbit that allows more payload delivery may be more practical, if only a fraction of the propellant mass is now required.

And what's going to power it?

"The result of this carefully managed process is 110 kW of power available for all uses," McKissock says. "After life support, battery charging, and other power management uses [take their share], 46 kW of continuous electric power are left over for research work and science experiments. That's enough to run a small village of 50 to 55 houses."

Emphasis mine

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... st13nov_1/
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
EarthlingX":36z1ugta said:
They are going to run it in 15 min pulses :

VASIMR : Testing on the space station
Since the available power from the ISS is less than 200 kW, the ISS VASIMR will include a trickle-charged battery system allowing for 15 min pulses of thrust.
How long will it take to charge? So what is the duty cycle: the operation time divided by total time charging + operation?
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
As far as needing a new govermental ISS. The answer is no. We need private specialized research space stations. The current ISS would still be usefull for government funded sceintific research.
 
D

dryson

Guest
Should the I.S.S. be retired? Only if the proper modules that have been designed to replace the I.S.S. are ready to be launched into space.

I have seen some of the new habitat module ideas on various websites and they seem promising.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
Keep the ISS just add onto it with more moduals and boost its orbit.

I assume these would be bigelow moduals there simply superior to the older solid kind. Just add onto the station and over the years as it gets bigger replace the older parts. Dont just deorbit them recycle them and use that for more moduals etc.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
MeteorWayne":3rdvzh45 said:
aaron38":3rdvzh45 said:
Valcan":3rdvzh45 said:
[/quote/]
If they made some plans to expand the station with new moduals and such is there any idea floating around on whether they could add more power plants/Solar panels?

Also do the bigelow type moduals use less or more electricity or is there much difference?
 
O

oldAtlas_Eguy

Guest
Valcan":3peq1v98 said:
If they made some plans to expand the station with new moduals and such is there any idea floating around on whether they could add more power plants/Solar panels?

Also do the bigelow type moduals use less or more electricity or is there much difference?
The Power sizing for the ISS was done for support of 1995 electronics technology and is 4 to 8 times larger than needed for daily use. That is why even with half the power down there was only moderate cutbacks on power usage. If the electronics on the ISS is upgraded completely to current state of the art extreme low power computers and systems, lighting, etc: 5 to 25 watt computers instead of 150 to 250 watt, LED flat panels with 1/2 power usage than the older tech flatpanels, usage of LED lighting at 1/2 the power usage than florescent or 1/8 the even more power hungry incandescent. Everything that uses power produces the same amount of power in heat. So the heat exchanger was sized for the higher power load as well. That is why the Bigelow modules have smaller power sources and smaller heat exchangers because they are not needed to be larger.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
Per Bigelow Aerospace there is a memorandum of understanding with 6 different countries, for the construction of space habitats. Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, Australia and the United Kingdom. These will be built using the Atlas V and the Boeing CST-100 capsule.

So there will be additional space stations by Bigelow for the international community. I doubt very much there will be a need for a new "international space station". This one is called international but its primarily for US and Russia, with Canada, EU, and Japan getting a small portion of usage.

I think even more interesting is for Bigelow aerospace to put together an actual space ship using a 1 sundancer/ 2 BA-330/ 1 power buss and docking ports. This ship can get some shielding and get re-fuled in orbit for repeated trips to the Moon or even Mars. A station is good, but I hope somebody starts to look farther ahead at manned space ships soon.
 
J

jbbrandes

Guest
A major focus of constructing ISS was the gaining of experience in long term space habitation. ISS has barely been completed; calling for it to be retired is akin to buying a computer on Monday and then on Tuesday throwing it away because it is no longer state of the art. Experience must be gained in living and working in space and this includes meeting the challenges of maintaining our environment. In these matters we would do best to follow the lead of our Russian partners who kept the short term Mir station operational far past its original planned lifespan.

What concerns me most, however, is that ISS was designed and constructed with a limited lifespan in mind. The expenditure of money, resources, and yes, life that was invested should have resulted in a station that could be maintained as a whole for a far more indeterminate lifespan; Disguarding modules as they age and become unservicable and replacing them with new; Adding new segments to the whole as new requirements and uses are identified; thus creating a station that starts from an established baseline and grows as demands require it. This is what I understood my ISS tax dollars were buying me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts