What might ISS's succesor look like?

[willpittenger]

It might seem premature, but with aircraft, there is rarely an aircraft flying (other than the B-52 which will fly for close to a century) that does not already have its replacement on the drawing board. I figure ISS will be, to at least some extent, the same. People may already be using the experiences with ISS and the lack of the Shuttle system to think about what a successor might be.<br /><br />I should note that it might take a long time before we have anything capable of launching large cargoes again. Or will Ares V variants be able to handle the load?<br /><br />Also, could ISS be its own replacement? If we could get new modules up there, would it be worthwhile to replace existing modules? If so, what do you do with the old ones? If the Unity node had to be replaced, how would we do so? What could not be replaced? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

It could be said by some that the Bigelow BA 330 space station might be a successor to the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"that does not already have its replacement on the drawing board"<br /><br />As far as space stations, NASA isn't working on or looking at any others<br /><br /><br />"If the Unity node had to be replaced, how would we do so? What could not be replaced?<br /><br />Can't be done. No way to keep the ISS operating while the node or any other core module is deconnected .<br /><br />The ISS will be deorbited when it is done

 

[holmec]

We learned a lot with the ISS that will affect how future stations are made. Remember the ISS also has roots in Mir. (I know some one would want to say that ISS came also out of the American Space Station....Freedom? or Liberty or something like that)<br /><br />Other stations will be different for sure. Who knows what they will look like. They may take advantage of Bigelow's inflatable tech. The might have distributed power rather than central power, they might have wireless networks rather than having wires run through it. They may have ion thrusters or other types to maintain orbit, but my guess is that they will still have the robotic arm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

When do Nasa expect to retire the ISS?

 

[docm]

Most documents I've seen have an end date of 2016. I guess it comes down to funding by the partners and if the cores hold out. Note that by then Zarya and Unity will be 18 years old and Zvezda 16 years.<br /><br />That said; being so based on MIR it might be pretty funky up there by then, and unfortunately I think we're already seeing signs of that <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />As noted Bigelow modules & hubs have huge advantages, one being that if a module fails it could very likely be replaced. The key for them is how long will they last vs. ISS-style modules. According to Bigelow the Genesis I data so far looks very promising with less deterioration than expected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>that does not already have its replacement on the drawing board<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>As far as space stations, NASA isn't working on or looking at any others<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe NASA doesn't, but that doesn't mean that someone is thinking about it. It could be Boeing, Bigelow, or just a group of NASA people working unofficially on it.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the Unity node had to be replaced, how would we do so? What could not be replaced?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Can't be done. No way to keep the ISS operating while the node or any other core module is disconnected.<br /><br />The ISS will be deorbited when it is done.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Part of the reasoning for "ISS being its own replacement" is so you don't have to make a sudden switch like we did from Mir to ISS. In such cases, you either must leave LEO temporarily, like the Russians objected to, or have two crews in orbit during the assembly period. That could take years. So you attach the new modules to the existing station and then deorbit the old ones as they are no longer needed and can be removed.<br /><br />BTW: Replacing a module might also be something we would have to think about if an in use module were to fail or leak. Especially a core unit like Unity.<br /><br />BTW 2: It did not help that I have been watching Mega Movers episodes on the History channel where they talked about how to move the Golden Gate Bridge and the Queen Mary (the original) over land. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">People may already be using the experiences with ISS and the lack of the Shuttle system to think about what a successor might be.</font>/i><br /><br />Most people seem to believe that Bigelow Aerospace will dominate the future space station market. China has made a fair amount of noise about building one too. I think it will be a lot of years (if ever) before NASA seriously looks at designing and building another space station.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow"> Or will Ares V variants be able to handle the load?</font>/i><br /><br />Ares V should have close to 6 times the payload mass to LEO than the Shuttle. It could put up a pretty substantial station in just one or two launches.</i></i>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Or will Ares V variants be able to handle the load?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Ares V should have close to 6 times the payload mass to LEO than the Shuttle. It could put up a pretty substantial station in just one or two launches.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />In mass or volume? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

You can't do microgravity research on the moon.

 

[vishniac2]

Strange: nobody asks the first questions that should come to mind:<br />A new station, a replacement...Why? For doing what?<br />Why should we replace ISS? To have another space station costing bilion$ where we can endlessly 'study the effects of microgravity on humans' and doing some miscellaneous experiments? To keep on invoking the dream of having LEO inhabited without gap? To do the same things again and again which have been done for the last 20 years on MIR and ISS? To 'learn how to build smething in space' ?<br /><br />That's typical auto-preserving bureaucracy to ask for something before considering its necessity.<br />From what I've read, that's how the European shuttle Hermes project came to life: during an executive meeting of CNES (French space agency), some big head came and said "We need a new project!!". No wonder it eventually aborted, there was no need. <br />Probably the same with Buran. Someone must have said: "Americans have a shuttle, we need one too" and yooplah, down went the money and they ended with a tool without mission...<br /><br />Someone want a space station? Define its missions first!

 

[christine16]

they can replace it

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>From what I've read, that's how the European shuttle Hermes project came to life: during an executive meeting of CNES (French space agency), some big head came and said "We need a new project!!". No wonder it eventually aborted, there was no need. </i><br /><br />There's a need now! I'm sure ESA would love to have the ability to send crew members to and from ISS, and it would take some of the burden off of Soyuz, while providing much needed redundancy during the shuttle to Orion gap.

 

[wubblie]

Yeah, you should read the newest Avaition Week magazine. It seems like ESA and Japan are just BEGINNING to really get into the ISS project. ESA is looking into a small automated material return capsule, an unpressurized vehicle for lifting structural components to the ISS, and a manned vehicle. And of course, both ESA and Japan will be launching their supply ships. Now that NASA is leaving the picture, ESA and JAXA seem to be moving out from NASA's shadow to take over. They seem really enthusiastic about ISS and their new modules haven't even been added yet. My prediction is that JAXA, ESA, and the Russians will be more than capable of taking over the ISS, and it will remain in operation for a long time after NASA has dropped it, maybe even growing with new modules. Also look for the Chinese to join the project after the American influence is reduced. <br />Also, I wonder if a group of separate 3-5 person sized space stations (possibly of Bigelow module design) could be placed in orbit near the ISS, with astronauts and supplies traveling back and forth in automated transport capsules. Maybe with one station dedicated to living quarters, one station for storing fuel and supplies for planetary missions in orbit, one for growing food, one for waste treatment, one station for experiments, etc. This way, all eggs wouldn’t be in one basket, they could line up to lessen micrometeorite danger, you would not need a big crew return vehicle (because in the event of an emergency, the astronauts would just abandon the station and go to one of the others). I would love to see an agricultural station added- I think that that would be excellent practice for planetary missions. <br />

 

[wubblie]

Perhaps also a power station in the group of space stations. It would have large solar arrays, and beam energy to the other stations using infrared lasers. It would also beam energy to the moon base and perhaps satellites in nearby orbits. It seems redundant for everything launched into space to have to carry it's own solar cells, and it would allow the moon mission to save on the weight of the solar cells.

 

[ckikilwai]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That's typical auto-preserving bureaucracy to ask for something before considering its necessity.<br />From what I've read, that's how the European shuttle Hermes project came to life: during an executive meeting of CNES (French space agency), some big head came and said "We need a new project!!". No wonder it eventually aborted, there was no need.<br />Probably the same with Buran. Someone must have said: "Americans have a shuttle, we need one too" and yooplah, down went the money and they ended with a tool without mission...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hermes would service the Columbus station, so it would have had a purpose, but big changes in the political climate like the fall of the Berlin wall and others prevented it from being accomplished, the same for Buran.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Someone want a space station? Define its missions first!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Space tourism!

 

[thereiwas]

Oh yes, I wanna be in a module with a hi-power IR beam pointed at it and trust that the aiming computers track the receivers as the modules float around, or somebody starts using the exercycle. Not.

 

[halman]

vishniac2,<br /><br />Perhaps it is because the Apollo program went to the Moon without having to use a space station for the orbital rendezvous, or maybe it is because the U. S. took so long to get motivated about space stations, or maybe it is some other reason, but a lot of people today don't think of a space station when they think of space exploration. It is all launch vehicles, capsules, and landers. But having a space station just outside the atmosphere allows us to use specialized vehicles for the different parts of space travel.<br /><br />We want to go the shortest distance possible to get into space, to keep the size of our launch vehicles as small as possible. Once in space, we should transfer to a true spacecraft, one which could never land on Earth, but could, say, land on the Moon. The Apollo approach was the fastest, cheapest way to get the job done, but it did not create any infrastructure to be used later. We are going down the same road again with our current plans to go back to the Moon, with a launch vehicle which has to push the crew capsule all the way to the Moon.<br /><br />Many people seem to have difficulty thinking of space as a place. Everyone talks about going to this body or that, but the majority of the Cosmos is empty space, which can be used for just about anything. Getting to the Moon or to Mars is important, but learning to live in a zero-gravity environment in orbit around something is going to be just as important, for materials processing especially, because we can create any environment that we want there.<br /><br />And we should all bear in mind that the International Space Station has been the victim of long delays in construction, as well as below recommended staffing levels. It was supposed to have been completed by now, as far as I know, and there should have been 4 or 5 people on board constantly by now, as well. So it is not surprising that the place is less than we had hoped. But that does not mean that space statio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"My prediction is that JAXA, ESA, and the Russians will be more than capable of taking over the ISS"<br /><br />Can't happpen. no US, no ISS. The ISS can't run without US involvement. <br /><br />The separate station concept is unworkable. Too much movement between the station disturbs the microgravity environment. Separate waste treatment station? Not really smart, having to cart crap around.<br /><br />Also the single solar power station is a bad idea. Safer to have the solar arrays on the elements, it is more reliable

 

[kelvinzero]

It seems a real pity to deorbit all our space junk.<br /><br />With all these new electric propulsion systems, will it ever be reasonable to push it all up to somewhere more stable and assemble it into one big junk yard? <br /><br />(edit: Perhaps this junkyard could be the next generation space station where we are also honing our construction skills.)

 

[Aetius]

I think that all those dead satellites in geostationary orbit will be a treasure trove of recyclable materials for some future generation.

 

[wubblie]

Perhaps we can send a probe out to nudge a near-earth asteroid into an orbital trajectory - "Apophis, [is] a meteor 300 meters in diameter. Scientists now estimate that there is a 1 in 45,000 chance that Apophis will collide with the Earth in 2036." It will be coming very close, so all we need to do is send a probe with a nuclear rocket or mass ejector setup, and we have 29 years to modify its path and capture it in orbit. How does a 300 meter space station sound? A nice solid place to set up our modules and solar panels. A lot easier to just grab something moving in space and use it for our next space station than launch everything up from earth, and it's all only 29 years away. How does "Space Station Apophis" sound?

 

[docm]

And if you miscalculate its absolute mass you turn a near miss into a WMD. <br /><br />No thanks <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Aetius]

I think that sounds like a good idea, if it can be shown to be technically feasible. We even have a good idea of how to make solar panels from asteroidal materials.<br /><br />We (and by "we", I mean humanity) have got to learn how to move asteroids around the solar system.

 

[Aetius]

Hopefully, a probe can get the needed 'ground truth'.