What good is the ISS anyway?

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> Does anybody with reasonable common sense actually think that such a facility isn’t worth even these ideas?</font>/i><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><i>But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA’s current allocation for human lunar return. <b><font color="yellow">It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program.</font>/b></b></i><br /><br />-- Michael Griffin, March 2004<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[j05h]

I've just read over the thread after a long, sunburnt weekend in Maine. 8) Here are some thoughts and comments. Frodo, Jon, GnR, others, I am trying to inject both some levelheaded analysis and inspiration to the discussion. Station has been both blessing and curse, it is a huge investment that we should figure out how to utilize to it's full potential - even if that means abandoning it as a lesson learned. I am still out on whether it should be scuttled or saved, but want more stations, not fewer. <br /><br />The ISS is having serious operational trouble, in funding, in ground operations (both TSuP and Houston), in maintenance (Elektron) and in utilization. Science time-budgets for astronauts have been cut to less than 10hrs/week, less during repair emergencies. The vibration environment for truly long-term microgravity is non-existent (and been known for over a decade) due to orientation control and astronauts moving around. The "big pharma/silicon" industries have shown almost no interest in ISS as a research platform, it is cheaper to do research in dedicated Earth-side facilities and the microgravity environment is spoiled. Nobody in NASA or the international partners is talking about recycling rocket metals or Lunar metals. The Centrifuge got cut by NASA recently, along with Node3, the Hab hasn't been part of Assembly complete since the 90s. No one in control (NASA & Feds, RKS, JAXA, whatever) is talking about large-scale manufacturing/recycling, beamed power or new centrifuges, despite the obvious space-development arguments for all of those things. OK, JAXA says their still interested in beamed power. There is a looming issue of some components in ISS nearing their half-life, including Zarya - Assembly Complete and Retirement are getting mighty close to each other. <br /><br />There are bright points, too, don't get me wrong. I think ISS is an important symbol, but it is largely a political achievement, not techno-business solution. ESA has talked about rev <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

>A higher inclination orbit is better for earth observation than <br /> />a lower one. It was also neccessary to be able to use two <br /> />essential peices of hardware, the Soyuz lifeboat and <br /> />progress tanker. Had a lower inclination orbit been chosen <br /> />the ISS would currently be unmanned and possibly deorbited. <br /><br />Unmanned satelites have proven more than adequate at Earth observation tasks, both commercial and military. <br /><br />Soyuz is about to have equatorial launch pads, so Russian-tech space stations in lower inclination orbits will soon be a possibility. Ariane V would replace the Proton rocket for launching modules, serviced by Kliper/Parom or Soyuz/Progress. This is forward looking and has little to do with the political decisions in '92/'93 that lead to the change to 51.6deg instead of 28.5. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">First off let me say I am not one of those people who want to abandon the ISS. We paid for the damn thing so we may as well get some use out of it.</font>/i><br /><br />Unfortunately, there is still a $60 billion bill outstanding, more than the entire budget for the return to the Moon through 2020!<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">And then there are all those pesky 'international obligations' to fulfill.</font>/i><br /><br />Obligations come and go. Spain had an election, and the new leadership cancelled its obligations in Iraq increasing the troop requirements and costs to the US. I have read several "international partners" plan to cut back their planned purchases of JSFs increasing the costs to the US.<br /><br />Can someone specifically identify how much the international partners have spent so far on the ISS? Is it $5 billion? $10 billion? $20 billion?<br /><br /><br />BTW: I am just being argumentative. My complaint isn't with ISS per se, it is with the execution of the plan.</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> ...Much more interesting, my friends, is to start thinking in terms of "stations" instead of "Station" ...</font>/i><br /><br />Wow! Much more informed and better argued than my planned post.</i>

 

[nacnud]

I think you need to look at the ISS criticism in two ways<br /><br />I) Why is so expensive?<br /><br />II) Why has nothing come out of it yet?<br /><br />The answers are obvious. The Shuttle is expensive, solution: find a cheaper launch method. This is on the way with the SDLVs<br /><br />As for the lack of research, well it’s not finished yet and there aren’t any researchers up there. To be fully crewed it needs another Soyuz, the Kliper or the CEV.<br /><br />These things are all on their way, hopefully by 2010. Until then the ISS will still seem to be a white elephant, and after then the public will be watching the VSE. The ISS will for fill it's design role but I suspect that when it dose the public won't notice.<br />

 

[ehs40]

i think that the iss has helped in internation exploration of space. it is too expensive for any 1 country to acomplish it alone even the us cant afford to do all the launches with out the esa and russia even tho nasa is putting the damn thing together with a decaying fleet

 

[nacnud]

That’s very true, now when esa talks to NASA and rosaviakosmos then all understand each others way of doing things. If the VSE turns international, as it might well do especially given esa's aurora project, then they have common ground to work on.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">BTW: I am just being argumentative. My complaint isn't with ISS per se, it is with the execution of the plan.</font>/i><br /><br />Josh gave a much better posting on the idea of a decentralized space station capability instead of a single monolithic design like ISS, but I thought I would post this (admittedly weaker) thought anyways.<br /><br />The ISS exhibits the following features:<br /><ul type="square"><li> It is really big requiring years of design and development and lots of shuttle flights.<li> Its components are designed so that only the shuttle can fly them.<li> Its schedule requires it to be largely built out before serious science starts, thus making it difficult for NASA to terminate the program and "waste all the money spent so far."<li> International agreements makes it very difficult for NASA to cancel the program.<br /></li></li></li></li></ul><br />It would be almost impossible to design a better guaranteed jobs program for the space shuttle and ISS programs. For NASA and its contractors, ISS is perfect. For science, the tax payer, and industry, it is far from perfect.<br /><br />IMHO, a better approach is to start with a small Phase I deployment, demonstrate value quickly, be flexible in future designes, and spiral up capabilities. For example, the first step should have been something like the Industrial Space Facility (ISF), a man-tended orbital platform that could be have for much of the early micro-gravity work.<br /><br /><b>If the ISF performed reasonably well</b>, then NASA could design a Phase II orbital platform. The requirements for Phase II would be driven by experience and knowledge gained from Phase I. It could be a more capable man-tended orbital platform, or maybe a small manned platform (e.g., 2-3 crew) that could be assembled in a handful of flights. A Phase II platform requiring 5-6 flights could be assembled in a single year.<br /><br /><b></b></i>

 

[spacester]

What a terrific post, JO5H! Thank you (and your fellow posters should thank you for saving them from another megapost from myself, by saying it much better than me, lol).<br /><br />The Euros and Russians seem to have big plans for ISS. Americans are not so sure it is the lab we want and need.<br /><br />We Americans want to keep our obligations as well as we can, but things change. We already let others down by not providing a lifeboat. Not that others were perfect.<br /><br />ISS can end up being about how Americans learn to do space stations - even if in some cases about how NOT to do them. It can be about America leading the way in space two ways at once - making concessions to others on ISS and showing the rest of the world a better way.<br /><br />America should filfill its obligations to go past core complete and get the partners set up with the lab they want.<br /><br />Then America should get about the business of business in LEO. Mr Bigelow and Mr. Musk stand ready to serve, along with many many many others. Sure, they stand a chance of getting richer, what's wrong with having space tycoons?<br /><br />Multiple space stations are the new game folks (pardon the self-promo but I was the lone voice on this here for so long I can't help it).<br /><br />I love the string of pearls concept (but dont see the need for HEEO orbits thru the Van Allen belts). Give the space taxis places to go. LEO is pretty cool if it's a place you can actually experience for yourself.<br /><br />Go Space Pioneers! Go Spaceopolis! "Go up, young man!"<br /><br />Sorry, too much enthusiasm? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[le3119]

I must take issue with your appraisal of the ISS. There are a few benefits to learning how to live and work 250 miles above sea level, but realistically, we'd be better off with a lunar transport system, and a small lunar outpost. For the most part, the ISS crew are virtually stuck up there anyway, and the US and Russian systems cannot get them down on time, or repair what malfunctions. What's a four day trip across cislunar space, we'd have a destination to go to, resources to explore and a small world laboratory to prepare us for Mars and the outer moons. The ISS as an orbital platform alone has been lacking greatly. A little more investment towards a lunar enterprise would give us a well-rounded manned program with many fronts to advance, not to mention a greater inspiration for all of us back here on Earth.

 

[john_316]

not to bash the ISS but have you ever noticed that when we have international partners we end up paying the bill anyways?<br /><br />you would 'assume' some of the modules could be lifted to the ISS on a EELV or HLV of some configuration without using the STS and use the ISS robot arm to assemble it.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder why we pay so much for part and components that are never gonna fly. now tell me isnt that a waste of money?<br /><br />ISS even with its meager science is wasting alot of US TAXPAYERS money and for what? I know that 2 guys on ISS are not conducting experiments 24/7. I hope that they at least do 8 hours of experiments per day though. otherwise we are paying what we get for.<br /><br />if you ask me personally i feel that nasa should always had retained alternate access to space since the STS conception and if that meant a pad for a Saturn to launch a CM/SM so be it.<br /><br />so when will ISS ever have a crew greater than 6 on it? whenever the shuttle docks with it and thats the only time. I think NASA next approach will go Lagrange with a US only space station...<br /><br />I cant see the international partners thing continuing especially when ESA has its on vision and it doesnt involve NASA...<br /><br />ISS as MIR-2 yeah you might as well say it becuase the USA paid for it. <br /><br />You know what I am kinda tired of paying for stuff that as an US citizen cant use. especially when theres always an illegal alien on my space station.... doesnt that break US immigration laws I think I am gonna sue............. <br /><br />HAHAHA!!!!!<br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I'd just like to point out that the bulk of the ISS is actually Russian, and was paid for by them. They've also paid for most of the astronaut and supply flights.<br /><br />The major modules waiting to go up were paid for by ESA and the Japanese. They were designed to fit the Shuttle cargo bay, with its particular method of support. They also rely on the Shuttle's manouverability and robotic arm. Getting them launched on an EELV is a non-trivial problem.<br /><br />The ISS was designed (amongst other reasons) to make use of the Shuttle, thereby giving a reason for the Shuttle's existence.<br /><br />Now it's up there, it does have some uses - principally in relation to space medicine and crew survivability and welfare. (Although, if you've got a crew, then it's worthwhile giving them other experiments to do.) It's a lot cheaper to test things on the ISS than on the Moon.<br /><br />There's is room to dock more than one Soyuz or equivalent at the ISS now. That would give a crew of six. The only reason this isn't done is that the Russians are not willing to pay for it, and NASA is forbidden by US law.

 

[j05h]

Thanks, spacester, I've been working on the many-stations argument for a while. <br /><br />Hopefully the ISS is only the first (9th?skylab, mir, etc) in a series of stations. I'm actually concerned that there won't be any more assembly flights and that the remaining hardware will be grounded along with the Shuttle. If ISS is deemed to be unusable for some reason, there should be discussion about putting Kibo, Columbus, Node 2 etc on a new station at 0 or 28 degree inclination. I agree about fulfilling our obligations, but there should be multiple solutions to those agreements.<br /><br />There are people, especially in NASA and academia, that absolutely oppose business being involved in space development beyond the current situation with Big Aero. They do not want space tycoons and want no further development. Wendell Mendell, Gunter Wendt, that snooty NASA lady at last year's Return to the Moon conference and all the socialistas that oppose anything beyond Shuttle/ISS fall into this camp, including last year's Democratic presidential candidate and many members of Congress. To turn a phrase: space is a place, not a jobs program!<br /><br />Multiple stations are indeed the new game, and unless those vested interests monkeywrench the game, there will be a lot of money to be made and new places to explore. <br /><br />My dual string-of-pearls has a large HEEO component for manufacturing, fuel/water storage and hardware departure to cis-Lunar and Mars. HEEO provides a convenient middle ground for robotic water-return craft to aerobrake into - these water tugs can hold station in HEEO until needed in LEO, L5 or on the moon. It is much more efficient than bringing mass all the way down to LEO if it is going to be routed to the moon. By far the largest mass for orbital development will be water, IMHO, closely followed by petrochemicals then metals. HEEO will be the "outer harbor", tank yard and industrial park while LEO will be the playground, inner harbor and departure point to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

Who paid for the Russian modules depends on who you ask. RKS and the Kremlin ordered them, but Zarya (FGB) was paid for largely with NASA money, as were Priroda and Spektr on Mir. Having a station to practice living in space definitely has benefits, but shouldn't be a bank-breaking endeavour. <br /><br />Two Soyuz could be docked to ISS, but would require a lot of shuffling of spacecraft between the two docking ports. Progress flights are carefully coordinated against crew-exchange flights now. The Russian segment really needs the "Enterprise"/FGB2/Stowage module for additional docking. <br /><br />On a policy level, NASA is finally moving against the Iran Nonproliferation Act and it looks like Congress is going to loosen those restrictions. This is very good, IMHO, because it will allow increased crew exchange without Shuttle in the period between 2006 and CEV coming online. Energia has said repeatedly that they can expand the Soyuz capsule production line if there is money on the table. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[syndroma]

J05H,<br /><br />There's such a mechanism as Balance of Contributions. It accounts things like NASA money for Zarya, free rides on Soyuz, on-orbit manhours and many others.<br /><br />AFAIK, contributions are almost equal now.<br /><br />More important is that US and Russian segments are mutually dependent. They cannot survive without each other.<br /><br />The key word is "partners", not "international".<br />

 

[j05h]

syn- yes, agreed. I wasn't chest-thumping for the USA. 8) I'm looking forward to INA being amended/revoked. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>