NASA plans to deorbit ISS in 2016

[sao123]

Text

we spent over $100billion to build an put this research station into orbit, it wont be completed until late next year, and then 6 years later, were going to just drop it into the pacific?

We should be leasing it out to private companies for research and collecting royalties to pay for our next generation space station.

 

[Moonbeam]

We killed the planet and now humanity's dying. We have to retract as we die.

 

[randalee]

Remember SKYLAB?

That thing lasted LESS than a decade. I actually have a 1"x1" piece of it somewhere in a baggie. (Could be a fraudulent piece, but I'd like to think it's REAL.)

 

[Acanthus]

That does seem to be very counterproductive.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sao123
Text

we spent over $100billion to build an put this research station into orbit, it wont be completed until late next year, and then 6 years later, were going to just drop it into the pacific?

We should be leasing it out to private companies for research and collecting royalties to pay for our next generation space station.

All such projects have a finite life span.

I think before we suggest they maintain it longer we need to know what purpose it would serve, and compare that to the additional cost (maintain and man etc). I.e., cost-benefit analysis.

I didn't see any amount for annual care & mantainance in the article, but did see it has funding problems (as well as no shuttle to service it after 2010).

I suspect leasing it out is highly risky; we'd have to maintain it for the leasee. We'd also have to hope they didn't screw something up and send it crashing down on NYC etc. Also, NASA is not in the 'leasing business', might be better to let them do what they do best and not turn them into some kind of 'space landlord'.

Fern

 

[MovingTarget]

The space station should be kept until at least 2020. 2016 is definitely premature. Only around five years with its full crew complement? What a waste.. We need to get on this NOW.

 

[Arkaign]

We should auction it off, or hand it over to the Chinese.

 

[yllus]

Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

I'm surprised this hasn't been in the works sooner since we landed there already. I would figure that a moonbase would be far more valuable for various experiments than a space station in orbit close to our planet. Don't know, I'm probably an idiot though.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

I'm surprised this hasn't been in the works sooner since we landed there already. I would figure that a moonbase would be far more valuable for various experiments than a space station in orbit close to our planet. Don't know, I'm probably an idiot though.

I'd think that a moon base would be a logistics nightmare? Everything would not only have to be shot into space but also landed on the moon.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

I'm surprised this hasn't been in the works sooner since we landed there already. I would figure that a moonbase would be far more valuable for various experiments than a space station in orbit close to our planet. Don't know, I'm probably an idiot though.

I'd think that a moon base would be a logistics nightmare? Everything would not only have to be shot into space but also landed on the moon.

Once you got past the fuel/landing requirements, things would also be easier. It is much easier to build/maintain structures at the bottom of a gravity well.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

I'm surprised this hasn't been in the works sooner since we landed there already. I would figure that a moonbase would be far more valuable for various experiments than a space station in orbit close to our planet. Don't know, I'm probably an idiot though.

I'd think that a moon base would be a logistics nightmare? Everything would not only have to be shot into space but also landed on the moon.

Once you got past the fuel/landing requirements, things would also be easier. It is much easier to build/maintain structures at the bottom of a gravity well.

True, but I think the hard part would be maintaining the people actually on the moon AND the equipment used to maintain those people.

Would it be worth the effort?? IMHO, it would be questionable at best. That's why I favor the space station concept.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
True, but I think the hard part would be maintaining the people actually on the moon AND the equipment used to maintain those people.

Would it be worth the effort?? IMHO, it would be questionable at best. That's why I favor the space station concept.

Apparently it'd take about six missions using the next-gen NASA spacecraft, Constellation.

The Next Giant Leap

Constellation will launch two rockets almost simultaneously?the new Ares V will go up with 157,000 pounds of cargo for building the moon base, and once Mission Control has verified that all systems are go, then its companion, the Ares I, will go up with the crewed Orion capsule on top.

Hanley, the midwesterner, cool and restrained, in an off-white suit jacket: ?The Ares V?s the biggest rocket anybody will have ever built. This gets lost in discussions of performance. To redesign and human-rate??i.e., make it safe for humans to fly into orbit on it??an existing launch vehicle would cost a lot of time. There?s a lot of momentum behind Ares. It?ll improve crew safety by a factor of ten. Airlines have a one-in-10,000 fatality rate. The shuttle has a one-in-sixty?as safe as getting in your car.? We?re shooting for one in 1,000.?

Cooke, in a blazer, from behind his lunch: ?Preliminary design review went very well.?

Hanley: ?We?re opening up all locations on the moon for exploration. Apollo only went to the near side and the equatorial regions.?

I asked about getting to Mars and, once there, how we would get back.

Hanley: ?We can make fuel from the Martian atmosphere?that?s simple chemistry.?

Cooke: ?There?s an opportunity to send something to Mars every twenty-six months. It?ll take six Ares V rockets to do a Mars mission. But first we?ve got to close the life-support-system loop.? Hence the moon base, where lunar soil?regolith?will be converted to oxygen, water, and fuel, and where options for growing food will be explored.

 

[sapiens74]

For 100 billion we could have bought Google....

 

[Specop 007]

With all the ridiculous spending thats been going on how in the hell is it a 6 year orbital station that cost 100 billion the thing that frustrates you??

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I'm going to buy it so that I can throw rocks at you people from the sky.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: randalee
Remember SKYLAB?

That thing lasted LESS than a decade. I actually have a 1"x1" piece of it somewhere in a baggie. (Could be a fraudulent piece, but I'd like to think it's REAL.)

skylab was less than 1/4 of the size and weight of ISS. It was launched in one piece.
The ISS took a decade to build, and will be used for 6 years after completion?
sounds like a bit of a waste.

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sao123
Text

we spent over $100billion to build an put this research station into orbit, it wont be completed until late next year, and then 6 years later, were going to just drop it into the pacific?

We should be leasing it out to private companies for research and collecting royalties to pay for our next generation space station.

All such projects have a finite life span.

I think before we suggest they maintain it longer we need to know what purpose it would serve, and compare that to the additional cost (maintain and man etc). I.e., cost-benefit analysis.

I didn't see any amount for annual care & mantainance in the article, but did see it has funding problems (as well as no shuttle to service it after 2010).

I suspect leasing it out is highly risky; we'd have to maintain it for the leasee. We'd also have to hope they didn't screw something up and send it crashing down on NYC etc. Also, NASA is not in the 'leasing business', might be better to let them do what they do best and not turn them into some kind of 'space landlord'.

Fern

regrettably, it does have a finite lifespan, but one would assume that it would at least be longer than the time taken to construct the thing. If I recall correctly, (when I was on a tour at NASA) the tour guide told us that the original plan was supposed to be fully functional for at least 15 years once completed, for a total time of a quarter century.

Im all for cost benefit analysis, but that is the type of thing supposed to be done prior to beginning a project. Government waste due to beginning a project, and then over halfway done cancelling it due to underfunding is one of the biggest pet peeves of mine.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'm going to buy it so that I can throw rocks at you people from the sky.

We terrans tend to get pretty riled up over rocks. Better watch it.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

I'm surprised this hasn't been in the works sooner since we landed there already. I would figure that a moonbase would be far more valuable for various experiments than a space station in orbit close to our planet. Don't know, I'm probably an idiot though.

Zero gravity is the attraction.

Perhaps they are running out of things to test in ZERO gravity... or they finally realized that "Star Trek in space" just isn't in the cards... at least not for another few centuries [give or take 500 years, or a 1000 years...].

Here's why a moonbase is better than a space station:

Moon Mining

 

[DrPizza]

Push it into the Pacific now, before it wastes any more money. That's about all it does, with the exception of providing middle schoolers with opportunities for video-conferencing with astronauts.

 

[Sacrilege]

The ISS is not going to be deorbited in 2016. NASA just hasn't made plans to tend to the station after that time. And now that the station has 6+ crewmembers, it will be able to conduct much more scientific experimentation. Zero gravity provides unique opportunities in many fields of study. Additionally, the ISS will provide a good testing ground/lifeboat for technologies and methods for the new Orion spacecraft, Russia's future spacecraft, and a possible European manned spacecraft variant of the ATV.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Push it into the Pacific now, before it wastes any more money. That's about all it does, with the exception of providing middle schoolers with opportunities for video-conferencing with astronauts.

Wow how uplifting of you :disgust:

So what pet project would you have NASA spend the manned spaceflight budget on? I'm guessing something with PhD's attached to it.



At the OP:

The statement by the ISS program manager is basically part of a game of budgetary chicken. The original plans and design for station called for an end to the program by 2015. These plans did not take into account all the delays from the IPs and Columbia. Some of the station has been up there for over 10 years, some for only 6 months. With strategic storage of spares the station can last into the 2020's

In fact there are internal analyses being performed right now to certify the vehicle for post 2016 operation and the program is looking at what spare equipment will fly before the end of the shuttle program. Large equipment needs the shuttle. Smaller items can fly on Russian Progress or Soyuz vehicles, European ATV, Japanese HTV, and eventually Orion or even a COTS vehicle. (I believe the FalconX just had a successful test launch)

For full disclosure I used to be an ISS flight controller. So I am biased a bit

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Push it into the Pacific now, before it wastes any more money. That's about all it does, with the exception of providing middle schoolers with opportunities for video-conferencing with astronauts.

Wow how uplifting of you :disgust:

So what pet project would you have NASA spend the manned spaceflight budget on? I'm guessing something with PhD's attached to it.



At the OP:

The statement by the ISS program manager is basically part of a game of budgetary chicken. The original plans and design for station called for an end to the program by 2015. These plans did not take into account all the delays from the IPs and Columbia. Some of the station has been up there for over 10 years, some for only 6 months. With strategic storage of spares the station can last into the 2020's

In fact there are internal analyses being performed right now to certify the vehicle for post 2016 operation and the program is looking at what spare equipment will fly before the end of the shuttle program. Large equipment needs the shuttle. Smaller items can fly on Russian Progress or Soyuz vehicles, European ATV, Japanese HTV, and eventually Orion or even a COTS vehicle. (I believe the FalconX just had a successful test launch)

For full disclosure I used to be an ISS flight controller. So I am biased a bit

That's just it: there's no need for manned space flight. With the exception of studying how human bodies react to being in space for months at a time, there's nothing robots can't accomplish for a small fraction of the cost of manned missions.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Push it into the Pacific now, before it wastes any more money. That's about all it does, with the exception of providing middle schoolers with opportunities for video-conferencing with astronauts.

Wow how uplifting of you :disgust:

So what pet project would you have NASA spend the manned spaceflight budget on? I'm guessing something with PhD's attached to it.



At the OP:

The statement by the ISS program manager is basically part of a game of budgetary chicken. The original plans and design for station called for an end to the program by 2015. These plans did not take into account all the delays from the IPs and Columbia. Some of the station has been up there for over 10 years, some for only 6 months. With strategic storage of spares the station can last into the 2020's

In fact there are internal analyses being performed right now to certify the vehicle for post 2016 operation and the program is looking at what spare equipment will fly before the end of the shuttle program. Large equipment needs the shuttle. Smaller items can fly on Russian Progress or Soyuz vehicles, European ATV, Japanese HTV, and eventually Orion or even a COTS vehicle. (I believe the FalconX just had a successful test launch)

For full disclosure I used to be an ISS flight controller. So I am biased a bit

That's just it: there's no need for manned space flight. With the exception of studying how human bodies react to being in space for months at a time, there's nothing robots can't accomplish for a small fraction of the cost of manned missions.

Only if you assume the ONLY goal is science.

As I'm sure you've noticed the primary goal of the manned space program is definitely not science. Science a secondary objective which is why there are plenty of folks in academia moaning about every dollar spent on manned spaceflight

Interestingly I had the opportunity to hear some of the original Apollo folks for the 40th anniversary of Apollo (Chris Kraft, Glynn Lunney and others) discussing what the purpose of manned spaceflight was. Kraft had the interesting answer of Return on Investment. He pointed out at the beginning of Mercury he could receive 22 words of teletype from Africa. At the end of Apollo they had full global communications. NASA didn't invent that infrastructure, it demanded it of industry and they responded. He also pointed out that any space exploration is at heart a political game and ROI is the best stick to use to sell it to the government.

What also shouldn't be overlooked is the number of engineers and scientists that became engineers and scientists because of the manned space program, even if they never worked for NASA. I don't know when you went to school or what your degree is in, but half the engineers I knew in college were in engineering because they wanted to be astronauts as kids.

Besides if you really want a more robust robotic exploration just think of the vehicles that could be launched by an ARES V with over 400,000lbs to LEO and 150,000lbs to the moon. Can you say big honking space telescopes or direct high speed trajectories to the outer planets?

If you kill ISS now then US manned spaceflight is dead and I'll guarantee you that extra 5 billion won't be going to any other NASA project.

IMHO of course

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: yllus
Well, with a permanent moon base in the works I suppose the ISS is old hat.

And where exactly are we going to get the money for a permanent moon base when we are running multi trillion dollar deficits?