Question Future of ISS

[Ator]

Hi, just registered so I'm going to put this in 'off topic' to be safe!

I'm fascinated by the thought we will have a permanant base in space, and eventually the moon and beyond. we're also restricted by the current tools we have and limited finances, so i'm keeping my wish list simple. at least we need a permanent space outpost in LEO and the foundation for it is the ISS

I don't understand the talk of de-orbitting the system when it is modular and as the modules reach the end of their service life can be replaced. in this way it can also grow and morph over the decades so that no original modules will be left at all

the tools are all there to do this now and will be cheaper than throwing it away for political not engineering reasons

I hope the ISS stays international as it's perfect for this permanent base I'm talking about. I'm quite convinced the Russians will never again be forced to de-orbit their hardware and if push comes to shove will close up the Zarya hatch and float away but I doubt it will come to this, although technically its possible

Either way I'm sure the ISS is the perfect way to build this permanent base using it's modular construction

all this talk of de-orbitting seems very short sighted as many of the modules will only have been up a few years and the reality on the ground is no new space station will be funded like this again for a LOOONG time

Ator

 

[Ark]

It's all a matter of money. NASA doesn't want to deorbit the ISS, but they have to because if they're going to pursue Ares on the current budget they will literally have no money left for ISS flights.

 

[Bj]

It's all a matter of money. NASA doesn't want to deorbit the ISS, but they have to because if they're going to pursue Ares on the current budget they will literally have no money left for ISS flights.

They don't have money now but that doesn't mean that another agency cannot sustain the ISS until NASA has Ares finished.

IMO manned space flight is really somewhat of a luxury. Granted up till now developments for manned space flight are and have benefited people all around. Now though it seems that anything that can be done by humans in space can also be done by robots. That kind of thinking may just be the prime argument against manned space flight.

 

[garyw]

They don't have money now but that doesn't mean that another agency cannot sustain the ISS until NASA has Ares finished.

Depends. NASA has to be involved because the ISS uses NASA encryption methods, NASA Comms gear (TDRS) and other NASA/US-MIL equipment. You can't have an ISS without having NASA.

---------- Post added at 06:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 AM ----------

I don't understand the talk of de-orbitting the system when it is modular and as the modules reach the end of their service life can be replaced. in this way it can also grow and morph over the decades so that no original modules will be left at all

Not possible. Sure it's modular for construction but that's it. Imagine replacing destiny or one of the central parts of the truss? Not possible as it would involve replacing half the station and NASA is giving up that up mass capacity plus the lead time to build such components is on the order of years. Aside from ORU's (Orbital Replacement Units) no major ISS component will be replaced.

 

[Ator]

Hmmm thanks for the replies - I used to follow space stuff intensely but have been 'out the loop' for the last five years or so... the shuttle/mir days and early ISS shenanigans were pretty exciting

Guess I was under the (naïve) impression that retiring Shuttle would save NASA a fortune for continued ISS operations and the Orion, etc. Sounds like a real 'committee job' there but that's surely off topic I never realised the budget problems were that bad

But Could ISS be operated on a budget? I don't see why not
On the plus side for ISS we have Progress, ATV and Japanese transports for resupply
By 2016 there may be Shenzou, the new Russian 6 seater or even commercial for crew changes as well as Soyuz. Nothing wildly expensive so far.

That leaves the structure - new modules cost can be spread over 30 years (my estimated service life being generous as no-one knows what that is! I say lets find out). There are plenty of heavy lift rockets around and in the pipeline which would arrive Russian style and/or canadarmed into place. What the Shuttle did can be replicated in other ways

True, a weakness of ISS design is the difficulty of replacing some of the core components but I imagine it still to be possible. An alternative is to discard whole chunks of the station and downsize it, at the same time improving the layout for future additions.

(I never liked the look of all the flexing stresses and the truss idea would be great if it could also lock in some structural strength)

There's also the 'plan b' of the Russians floating away, I'd hate to see this but much preferable to de-orbit and I half expect it

I wonder how much say the ISS partners have in all this, the Europeans and Japanese have put a lot of money into this too. NASA can't just decide on their own?

 

[SiberianTiger]

I'm fascinated by the thought we will have a permanant base in space, and eventually the moon and beyond. we're also restricted by the current tools we have and limited finances, so i'm keeping my wish list simple. at least we need a permanent space outpost in LEO and the foundation for it is the ISS

As Augustine's committee concluded, there's a conflict between the ideas of having and supporting the ISS on (for the USA) and getting to the Moon as soon as possible. You only can have two with really unrestricted funding.

I don't understand the talk of de-orbitting the system when it is modular and as the modules reach the end of their service life can be replaced. in this way it can also grow and morph over the decades so that no original modules will be left at all

It's not possible because of three reasons.

1. Not all modules are equally important. SM Zvezda and the truss structure with the equipment on it are just as important as the engine for the entire train. They can't be easily replaced and they have limited lifetime.

2. Some modules are now in between of others and can't be replaced because of this (think of FGB or the Unity).

3. The shuttles won't be there to fly the US-like kind of modules up anymore.

I hope the ISS stays international as it's perfect for this permanent base I'm talking about. I'm quite convinced the Russians will never again be forced to de-orbit their hardware and if push comes to shove will close up the Zarya hatch and float away but I doubt it will come to this, although technically its possible

Actually, the Russians may pretty much be forced to deorbit their hardware in case of further undercover economy problems preventing all the planned Russian modules to be launched no later than in 2014, according to the plan. The MLM alone will be useless without the power provided by the main truss-mounted solar arrays. Only launching of the two Power & Research modules may provide "technical independence" to Russian segment. But even then, there are so many occurrences these days when the two segments provide contigency for each other.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

the new Russian 6 seater

Which will take making:

• new capsule
• new rocket
• new space port (they will only break some ground in 2012)

... by 2016? :hmm:

I wonder how much say the ISS partners have in all this, the Europeans and Japanese have put a lot of money into this too. NASA can't just decide on their own?

I anticipate seeking the partners throwing their money into the hat to help keeping the stuff running.

 

[garyw]

But Could ISS be operated on a budget? I don't see why not

It already is. ISS spend is part of the yearly round of negotiations NASA has to provide to congress.

On the plus side for ISS we have Progress, ATV and Japanese transports for resupply
By 2016 there may be Shenzou, the new Russian 6 seater or even commercial for crew changes as well as Soyuz. Nothing wildly expensive so far.

China has expressed an interest in visiting the ISS but US congress are very much against the idea. It's bad enough the US having to pay a former enemy some $35 million per flight to get Americans up there. Imagine paying China + Russia for access!

What the Shuttle did can be replicated in other ways

Not really, Shuttle delivers parts and highly trained crews to install those parts. Many assembly missions having training that lasts upwards of a year. You can't match that with even a 6 person ISS crew and a part launched on an EELV

True, a weakness of ISS design is the difficulty of replacing some of the core components but I imagine it still to be possible. An alternative is to discard whole chunks of the station and downsize it, at the same time improving the layout for future additions.

ISS is something like version 50 of various plans for a space station, some were absolutely huge, others were more modest. ISS was the result.

There's also the 'plan b' of the Russians floating away, I'd hate to see this but much preferable to de-orbit and I half expect it

Russia have discussed this idea a little but for various reasons already mentioned I don't think it's possible. Russia needs the US segement and US needs the Russian segment.

I wonder how much say the ISS partners have in all this, the Europeans and Japanese have put a lot of money into this too. NASA can't just decide on their own?

Absolutely none. NASA can deorbit the ISS if they wish to and, in fact, are required by law to do so. There is no money in the budget beyond 2016 so NASA is doing the right thing by looking at options.

 

[Ator]

Thanks for replies, I accept the points made are real issues but I'm taking the position of what can be done to keep ISS in orbit as a key part of manned spaceflight. Five years in a long way off yet as well, a lot depends on the economic situation and success of NASA's constellation program to name a few

I think re: the new Russian spacecraft they will end up using Angara as the launch vehicle. I see no need to develop another launcher, seems like influence has swung back to Energia away from Khrunichev? The Angara heavy could fly in a few years from Pletesk and I do love the Rus design.. lets hope they include backup shutes though...

The lack of power is the achilles heal of Russian side although with Zvezda and Zarya maybe enough for basic operation? There are not many modules to support

Zvezda is a mini-space station just on it's own, at the least you could have this in orbit

No, I'm sure the engineers can find ways to keep at least some of the ISS aloft.
Like I said, Zvezda on its own is surely going to work, so why de-orbit in '16? The money to maintain may not be great as the Russians kept Mir going through year after year of shoe-string budgets. I want us to fail, if we do, from bad luck or a human mistake not some beurocrat pulling the plug

 

[SiberianTiger]

I think re: the new Russian spacecraft they will end up using Angara as the launch vehicle. I see no need to develop another launcher, seems like influence has swung back to Energia away from Khrunichev? The Angara heavy could fly in a few years from Pletesk and I do love the Rus design.. lets hope they include backup shutes though...

The simple reason why Angara is not likely to be used for manned launches is its launch pads location: they are only supposed to be built in Plesetsk. It's not possible to launch off Plesetsk and reach the ISS it what inclination it's in. There is Baiterek project (joint Russia+Kazakhstan), however, to have the former Energia launcher's universal test-launch pad to be converted to an Angara pad, but this is done mostly to support future Kazakh space programme which is unlikely to have any manned component in the near decades.

It's also needful to say that "the Rus" is going to be a more high payload launcher than any of the Angara family. It's ought to take over in the margin of highest Angar-able payloads, which is about 23-28 tonnes. Anything below that is to be handled by Angara-1 and the new Soyuz-1 launchers replacing the current ex-ICBM herd. Anything above this range is to be handled by the Rus and launched off Vostochny.

You may ask: why not to build an Angara pad in Vostochny then? The most obvious reason not to do that is that the production volume of Angara and its rocket engines is limited by the capabilities of cetrain enterprises, and the military want all they can produce for their payloads. On the other hands, there are other plants that would run out of orders in case Angara is selected to be the only produced LV. A minimum level of divercity is vital for Russian rocketry and helps fightning monopolism.

The lack of power is the achilles heal of Russian side although with Zvezda and Zarya maybe enough for basic operation? There are not many modules to support

Zvezda is a mini-space station just on it's own, at the least you could have this in orbit

They have folded those solar arrays on the Zarya. In the present configuration, the RS is really dependent on the US arrays to generate power for operation. And also, the FGB is not owned by Russia: it was paid for and owned by the US side. It's a large storage space and equipment host. If Russia wants it, we will be required to pay for it, one way of another. This problem alone can become a fly sitting on a huge wight and swinging it aside.

No, I'm sure the engineers can find ways to keep at least some of the ISS aloft.

I want us to fail, if we do, from bad luck or a human mistake not some beurocrat pulling the plug

The engineers do always have good ideas, but the buraucrat folks will always decide, unfortunately. Hopefully, they won't go along the path of zealotic desctruction of everything connected to space once more. Slowly, reluctantly, but it has finally occurred to them that doing so is like slaying the hen that hatches golden eggs.