Washington Post: ISS end of mission 2016

[docm]

Sounds like scare tactics to get the funding moving, but in this environment who knows ?

Washington Post story...

Space Station Is Near Completion, Maybe the End

Plan to 'De-Orbit' in 2016 Is Criticized

By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 13, 2009

A number of times in recent weeks a bright, unblinking light has appeared in the night sky of the nation's capital: a spaceship. Longer than a football field, weighing 654,000 pounds, the spaceship moved swiftly across the heavens and vanished.
This Story

Fortunately, it was one of ours.

The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings. Circling the Earth every 90 minutes, it often passes over North America and is visible from the ground when night has fallen but the station, up high, is still bathed in sunlight.

After more than a decade of construction, it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts. The last components should be installed by the end of next year.

And then?

"In the first quarter of 2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft," says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini.

That's a polite way of saying that NASA will make the space station fall back into the atmosphere, where it will turn into a fireball and then crash into the Pacific Ocean. It'll be a controlled reentry, to ensure that it doesn't take out a major city. But it'll be destroyed as surely as a Lego palace obliterated by the sweeping arm of a suddenly bored kid.

This, at least, is NASA's plan, pending a change in policy. There's no long-term funding on the books for international space station operations beyond 2015.

Suffredini raised some eyebrows when, at a public hearing last month, he declared flatly that the plan is to de-orbit the station in 2016. He addressed his comments to a panel chaired by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine that is charged by the Obama administration with reviewing the entire human spaceflight program. Everything is on the table -- missions, goals, rocket design. And right there in the mix is this big, fancy space laboratory circling the Earth from 220 miles up.
>

 

[astronaut23]

That makes a lot of sense. Spend 100 billion dollars and then trash it. :roll:

 

[aphh]

That makes a lot of sense. Spend 100 billion dollars and then trash it. :roll:

Well, it is a science project and not a permanent colony in space. There's still over 6 years to conduct good science up there. From the engineering perspective ISS has almost done it's job, it has proven that large installations can be assembled and operated in space by international vendors and partners.

 

[clint_dreamer]

How much say does the United States actually have in deorbiting the ISS? Since it is a joint partnership I could see Russia and the ESA wanting to keep it in orbit and use it still.

 

[aphh]

How much say does the United States actually have in deorbiting the ISS? Since it is a joint partnership I could see Russia and the ESA wanting to keep it in orbit and use it still.

NASA is the largest contributor to ISS, so if NASA wanted to shut it down, others would need to come up with a solution including funding.

 

[SpeedRunner]

When they are done with it, they should leave it up there and make it a really expensive space hotel.

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's part of the problem; you can't just leave it up there. It needs to be reboosted every few months or it will eventually reenter and burn up on it's own.

And without missions to staff it, and keep it running, the demise would come even sooner.

 

[EAK09]

Would a low-mass / high velocity jet like the one used on the DSP (?) be able to make use of some 102kw of power with minimal refueling needs?

 

[StrandedonEarthsince1970]

Hmmm, sounds about right for a politically directed agency. That'll be just after NASA gets its own vehicle together to get men to the ISS. Then they'll dump it, and their shiny new Orion will have nowhere to go until the Moon missions in, hopefully, 2020. I really hope common sense prevails and they stop throwing valuable mass-on-orbit into the ocean.

 

[vt_hokie]

I'll be shocked if ISS is actually abandoned in 2016, barring anything catastrophic like a debris collision. Hopefully we'll see funding for operation for another decade at least.

 

[mr_mark]

If the ISS is deorbited it would be the BIGGEST complete waist of time and money in human history. The shuttle would forever be considered a complete waist of time as well. When I think of the human lives lost in the pursuit of the shuttle and the ISS just to deorbited, it makes me sick. Nasa has been off track since Skylab. Let's get back to the Moon build a ongoing base and then pursue Mars. :evil:

 

[clint_dreamer]

If the ISS is deorbited it would be the BIGGEST complete waist of time and money in human history. The shuttle would forever be considered a complete waist of time as well. When I think of the human lives lost in the pursuit of the shuttle and the ISS just to deorbited, it makes me sick. Nasa has been off track since Skylab. Let's get back to the Moon build a ongoing base and then pursue Mars. :evil:

I agree with you 100% Mark. Space Stations and Shuttles have set NASA back so the point where funding is constantly an issue and there is very little interest from the general public regarding anything space related because it has all become routine again. It unfortunate that todays media only focuses on negative themed stories because there have been a lot of exciting missions and discoveries that fail to receive any kind of coverage.

 

[radarredux]

I had three thoughts when I first read this story:

(1) It was a misquote or taken out of context or something.

(2) It is a threat/strategy to either get the international partners or Congress to pony up more money for operations beyond 2016.

(3) It is a recognition that the Constellation plan is going to be completely redesigned shortly.

To that last point, the stories are that Ares I operational status by 2015 is looking much less likely. If NASA is going to de-orbit ISS before Ares I is ready or about the same time, Ares I would have no reason to fly until the actual lunar missions in 2020 or later, so why rush to build it now?

In other words, cancel/postpone Ares I and spend the resources on an unmanned HLV such as Ares V. If by 2016 SpaceX, ULA, or others show promise on launching Orion (or a close approximation) into orbit on their respective rockets, then go with those solutions. However, if no COTS effort has made sufficient progress by 2016, then the government steps back in with a crew launch vehicle or plans to launch two Ares V (or Ares IV) for each lunar mission.

 

[ThereIWas2]

This is utterly stupid, and shows complete ignorance of space economy. Our major investment in ISS is not in building it, but in putting it into orbit. Look at the cost of one shuttle launch, compared to the development cost of just one module. When it has outlived its usefulness as a manned research facility it is still worth billions as scrap, simply because of where it is!

Rather than destroy it, it should be boosted into a higher, stable, orbit, and just left there, to be used as raw material for something else in the future, when we develop the technology to make use of it. Yes, the rubber seals will be useless, the computer technology will be obsolete (forget those laws about technology export; nobody cares), the batteries will be frozen. Doesn't matter. Most of it is various metal alloys, and that is the useful part.

 

[docm]

Would a low-mass / high velocity jet like the one used on the DSP (?) be able to make use of some 102kw of power with minimal refueling needs?

NASA's new administrator is a huge fan of the VASIMR plasma rocket, a solar powered version of which was scheduled to go up to the ISS for testing ~2012, and if successful - reboosting duty, even before he took the job.

 

[aphh]

(2) It is a threat/strategy to either get the international partners or Congress to pony up more money for operations beyond 2016.

Nope. All of the partners have calculated that they will have received desired return on investment in terms of scientific research by 2016.

It is up to anybody to find good use for ISS if we wanted to keep it going beyond 2016.

 

[radarredux]

All of the partners have calculated that they will have received desired return on investment in terms of scientific research by 2016.

Wow! So this isn't a NASA-specific view?

This opens up a bunch of questions. Will the individual countries pursue their own orbital platform agendas (i.e., build new space stations based on lessons learned from ISS or rent space on something like a Bigelow or Chinese station)? Will most of the countries pull back from manned exploration of space and/or microgravity R&D? Or will most countries plan to move their manned exploration of space beyond LEO and see supporting ISS as a financial drag?

In other words, since ISS has been pretty much the sole focus of international manned space exploration since ~1993 (China being the obvious exception), and LEO pretty much the sole focus of manned exploration since ~1972, a decision to abandon ISS in ~7 years seems to signal a major change of thinking.

 

[trailrider]

Sure! Why not? This goes right along with the rest of what's going on in Foggy Bottom...flush the U.S. economy right down the ol' "$600 toilet"! :x With the $trillions being flushed, what's $100 billion?

What NASA needs to do is come up with a way to boost the ISS to a higher, stable orbit, and then lease it out to whoever wants it. Commercial applications, by whoever can use and support it, will benefit the U.S. economy and the world economy, as well as Humankind.

Hopefully the U.S. will get its act together on the Space Program. If not, we will become the Portugal of the Space Age!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

There was talk of the Russians reusing their segments. I posted about it a couple of months back.

 

[aphh]

Wow! So this isn't a NASA-specific view?

For ESA the planned timeline for ISS at this point seems to end in 2015. There is no announcement about this on their site, but six more ATV's or Automated Transfer Vehicle flights to ISS are in the cards, one ATV per year starting next year.

You can easily calculate the end of planned mission based on that.

The big picture for ESA after that is somewhat cloudy when it comes to manned spaceflight, but I don't think they would abandon sending people to space. Various projects are currently underway that address the problems of manned spaceflight and long term space missions one by one.

 

[tomnackid]

Um, people. NASA doesn't decide what to fund or what not to fund. Congress does that. Its congress's decision not to fund the ISS after 2016 not NASA's.

 

[davcbow]

Does our government not have a clue as how to make money? Why not after the science is finished turn the station into a tourist destination. They could add some of the inflatable sections as Ive seen planned in earlier plans for the station and let people but a trip to LEO. Sure I understand it can be dangerous but look at what the russians do at times. Let different people buy a ride into space to the station. The money that could be made could go towards NASA's other plans to go further into space. In a word NASA could someday almost be self funded.... Just a idea....

 

[tanstaafl76]

I say auction it off to the highest bidder.

 

[Booban]

2016 is just a negotiating position. All the partners will have to come back and negotiate the terms of their contribution. Maybe the US will then no longer be the major partner or maybe can squeeze out a few more bucks from it's partners.

As a planer there has to be some date you work with that meets all your goals, you can't just plan for 'eternity' date.

Then one can wonder how long does a space station take to 'decay' in space. Would think it could last forever really, with good maintenance. Can any data be extrapolated concerning micro meteor damage to the station and how long those solar panels will last? I assume they are the most vulnerable and only the shuttle can bring them up there.

Anyone know off hand how long the Mir space station lasted?

Edit: Just checked, Mir was up there for 15 years. Hmm. Mir I remember was in pretty bad shape really. One wonders if ISS really does have all that much more time after all.

 

[davcbow]

Edit: Just checked, Mir was up there for 15 years. Hmm. Mir I remember was in pretty bad shape really. One wonders if ISS really does have all that much more time after all.

The Mir had a major fire inside the station also had a progress resupply ship run into the station damaging quite a bit of it, of which anything like that has never happened to the ISS....