Presently some 22 years old we hear of age related problems. This seems to be a very short useful life span. What is the plan to increase stations lifespan ?
True !It was better when a Suttle could go up there and repair / update things.
But of course the Shuttles are old and outdated also. And they were falling apart. Launch and reentry can be very brutal on just about anything.
The bumping and vibration alone can be devastating. That and human error, which was the root cause of us loseing two of them. And the loss of very experienced crews.
I mean, the two richest people in the world are obsessed with space, I don't think that the finances of it would be too hard.I think so, too. Could become a future museum. But, it’s the tax money that pays for it, and many taxpayers don’t care about space, let alone saving something like the ISS. It’s their money, too.
I mean, it doesn't need to go all the way to the moon. Even just shifting it into a high earth orbit would drastically increase it's lifespan, as well as massively decreasing the chance of a catastrophic debris collision.The ISS weighs 400 tons. Putting it on the Moon would require around half the energy that got it to low Earth orbit. Our largest rocket, SLS, can put 86 tons to LEO. It would take about five flights of SLS to move ISS to the Moon. At $4 billion apiece the total cost would be about $20 billion, or one year of NASA budget. They are unlikely to look favorably at such an expenditure since it provides no scientific return.
ISS is not designed to withstand the stresses of being sent to the Moon. It would have to be disassembled and reassembled. Double my previous estimate of cost.
Building with acceptance of limited lifespans is done because it is more cost effective; it seems very reasonable - the opposite of ludicrous. Disposable rockets have done most of what we have done in space to date and will probably continue being done for a long time yet.True !
But building a structure with out ability to service repair and maintain is Ludicrous.
Miss the shuttle but they declined to redesign this needed technology. Hubble also misses it and is in the same position as ISS.
Reusability and cost effectiveness should not apply only to rockets and needs to be applied every where.
It isn't a choice between astronaut repairs and robot repairs, it is between being repairable or being replaceable. Replaceable is currently better.I believe humans are going to be needed in orbit and beyond for a long, long time. Robot repair is still orders of magnitude cruder than the human hand. I want to see a robot remove the old threads from a ripped seam on a shirt, thread up a needle and stitch a repair. Make it look nice.
I've seen estimates of US$10 billion spent on maintenance and repair for a $1.5 billion telescope, so replacement 5 times sounds about right, with enough left over for a 6th. Even without subsequent ones probably being cheaper to build.By your logic, Hubble would have been replaced 5 times, which is the number of times it was serviced.
Human repair is only an option in close environs to Earth, beyond that self repair or loss is the only affordable option.