This makes absolutely no sense!

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">If memory serves correctly, shuttle Columbia could not make it to ISS orbit at all, while the newer orbiters could. Somebody else can probably tell what the difference between Columbia and the other orbiters was.&nbsp;The orbit for ISS had to be chosen for both Baikonur and Cape launches, which is quite limiting. Posted by aphh</font></p><p>The problem was ISS orbital inclination, geared towards ease of access from Baikonur. ISS was placed in an orbit with an inclination of 51.6 degrees. Columbia was the heaviest of the orbiters which meant less payload capability which was the reason it was not assigned any ISS missions.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Twenty years may not be as big a problem as you think.&nbsp; Look at the service life of the B-52 bomber or the projections of the service life ballistic missile submarines and the missiles that they carry.&nbsp; With all of the problems that came up during the construction of the ISS (and that construction is not yet complete) it might be difficult to find funding for another one anytime soon. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yeah, but B52s can land and boomers can be hauled into drydock.&nbsp; Maintenance is much easier when you can get the thing into a factory somewhere to do the work.&nbsp; On the ISS, they can only repair whatever they can bring spares for.&nbsp; The starboard SARJ problems are unfortunately proving instructive in that area.&nbsp; What's more, they have to keep the station functioning throughout the repair, because they depend on it for life support.&nbsp; So keeping it maintained is not simple.</p><p>That said,&nbsp; I think you're right -- there's a good chance that it could be kept flying past 2020, and I hope it won't be abandoned before it has really passed the point of no longer being repairable. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">I thought the go-ahead plans for the ISS were already in place 4 or 5 years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. No? I could be mistaken but I don't think so. Posted by ZenGalacticore</font></p><p>I would agree with you. ISS roots can be traced back to space stations official birth or approval during the January 25, 1984 State Of The Union address given by President Reagan. Over the following years, station evolved from power tower to dual keel to rescoped designs.</p><p>The station was originally named Freedom. In 1993, the station was close to cancellation when the Clinton Admin was tasked with rescoping the project yet again. Several alternatives to the Freedom design were offered and Clinton chose the one closest to Freedoms configuration which allowed for salvaging any hardware entering the construction phase at that time.</p><p>The Clinton Admins biggest contribution to saving the station program was inviting the Russians into it. ISS was born from that point on despite the fact that station was an international project from the beginning. Some folks also consider Freedom and ISS to be two different projects as though Freedom was actually cancelled, which it wasn't. It was rescoped to become ISS.</p><p>So yes, the station was in official development status long before the end of the Soviet Union.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah, but B52s can land and boomers can be hauled into drydock.&nbsp; Maintenance is much easier when you can get the thing into a factory somewhere to do the work.&nbsp; On the ISS, they can only repair whatever they can bring spares for.&nbsp; The starboard SARJ problems are unfortunately proving instructive in that area.&nbsp; What's more, they have to keep the station functioning throughout the repair, because they depend on it for life support.&nbsp; So keeping it maintained is not simple.That said,&nbsp; I think you're right -- there's a good chance that it could be kept flying past 2020, and I hope it won't be abandoned before it has really passed the point of no longer being repairable. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>It kind of makes you wonder what the plumbing bill came to for fixing that broken toilet? &nbsp;</p><p>I can sympathize with the frustration of letting good equipment burn up in space, but the maintenence costs are significant.&nbsp; In a perfect world with no limit on cash, it does seem like a big waste.&nbsp; If you look at the budget numbers however, NASA has a lot to do, and everything has to be prioritized.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now if we only had something like the Startrek version of the Enterprise, they could land for retrofitting once in a while and maintenance would be a lot simpler. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It kind of makes you wonder what the plumbing bill came to for fixing that broken toilet? &nbsp;I can sympathize with the frustration of letting good equipment burn up in space, but the maintenence costs are significant.&nbsp; In a perfect world with no limit on cash, it does seem like a big waste.&nbsp; If you look at the budget numbers however, NASA has a lot to do, and everything has to be prioritized.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now if we only had something like the Startrek version of the Enterprise, they could land for retrofitting once in a while and maintenance would be a lot simpler. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Actually the Enterprise never "landed" back on earth. All servicing was done in "Space Dock".</p><p>It was too big to land...<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[usn_skwerl]

<p>The shuttle relies on the space station, and the space station relies on the shuttle. If one fails, the other will fail.</p><p>If it wasn't for the ISS, the orbiters would have been in museums by now. The only option from ths point is to let the ISS run its course, and maybe, in 5 years or so (2016, which is the current expiration date of the ISS) someone will have an HLLV and send some additional modules (Bigelow?) and crew to keep her flying. If not, you'll be watching the ISS burn up on youtube. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually the Enterprise never "landed" back on earth. All servicing was done in "Space Dock".It was too big to land... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I stand corrected.&nbsp; I believe it was Voyager that could actually "land" on a planet.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I stand corrected.&nbsp; I believe it was Voyager that could actually "land" on a planet.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Correct.&nbsp; </p><p>Actually, my uncle and his college buddies made a fanfilm in which the Enterprise landed (for comic purpose) at Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport so they could run to White Castle and order up 40,000 burgers to reprovision the ship.&nbsp; It was a very silly movie.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct.&nbsp; Actually, my uncle and his college buddies made a fanfilm in which the Enterprise landed (for comic purpose) at Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport so they could run to White Castle and order up 40,000 burgers to reprovision the ship.&nbsp; It was a very silly movie. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />40,000 White Castle Burgers? Heck, you'd only need a carry-on suitcase, though I wouldn't want to go through airport security with them!<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>White Castle, the Universal Intestinal Lubricant </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>White Castle, the Universal Intestinal Lubricant <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>(Note to self:&nbsp; Do *NOT* read Wayne's posts with a mouth full of hot coffee as it may be hazardous to nasal passages and nearby keyboards!)&nbsp;</p><p>That literally made coffee go flyiing!&nbsp;&nbsp; Thanks for a great laugh.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dont get it, they worked on the ISS for years, and they will still be working on the ISS for another 2 years, adding components and other cool things. Everything is very expensive, very much the latest of the latest technology and at the same time work done there is unique in every aspect. Then, BOOM! They dont expect this to last past 2020!!! What the heck? Who spends 100 billion dollars and then all the sudden does not consider keeping it alive for at least 20 years or more? Why not replace the oldest module with an updated version? A more durable version, or maintain the thing somehow? <br /> Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV></p><p>As others have stated, the ISS was more of a political experiment than anything else.&nbsp; It's a huge moneysink and, once started, we could hardly just leave it there to fall apart could we?&nbsp; Then, it'd be a lasting memorial to failure.&nbsp; So, throwing more money at it makes it look good.</p><p>Don't get me wrong: I recognize the importance of learning how to build something in space and learning how to maintain a working space station.&nbsp; Those are important things.&nbsp; I just don't think they're umpy-bajillion-dollars/man-hours type of imporant.&nbsp; But, all in all, I think the learning experience will be fruit in the long run.&nbsp; The "very long" run, at least.</p><p>After all, the venerable Skylab, may it rest in pieces, was only aloft for 6 years or so.&nbsp; So, as space-stations go, not counting the USSR/Russia, the ISS will be an old lady when she retires.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[KF6BKA]

<p><font size="2">So what is the future for manned spaceflight when we lose the shuttle and the ISS by 2020? Will we really go back to the moon? Seems to me that the new CEV is a cheap cop out really in a design sense,&nbsp;a bigger Apolo? Where's the heavy lift capability that would be required to build a new orbital or moon station? </font></p><p><font size="2">I guess my feeling is that we are going to the moon to look around again and then wait another 10 years or so before we could have a spacecraft that could haull materials needed for a station.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>Rich</p><p>KF6BKA</p> </div>