the iss

[dougkeenan]

You might. NASA not

Griffin not, NASA ... well, we'll all see soon enough!

I wager one candy bar that people never fly on Ares (I, V, doesn't matter). Bet is concluded next time a human orbits the moon.

 

[Moonwalker]

I wager one candy bar that people never fly on Ares (I, V, doesn't matter).

That's the usual disbelieve. When the Shuttle was under development even people like Robert Crippen thought it won't work. The development phase looked anything but promising. Today the Shuttle still flies

Bet is concluded next time a human orbits the moon.

Next time a human orbits the moon it will be NASA. ESA won't until 2020, Roscosmos won't too and the CNSA doesn't intend to land on the moon before 2024 anyway.

 

[dougkeenan]

That's the usual disbelieve. When the Shuttle was under development even people like Robert Crippen thought it won't work. The development phase looked anything but promising. Today the Shuttle still flies

Thankfully yes it does but we're not talking about the shuttle. I like "Snickers" bars but since this is an Orbiter forum maybe we should standardize on "Milky Way." C'mon, it's only one little bar of chocolate ...

Next time a human orbits the moon it will be NASA. ESA won't until 2020, Roscosmos won't too and the CNSA doesn't intend to land on the moon before 2024 anyway.

Probably so but these days it's hard to say. (And that's a good thing!) So I simply leave it at, any human will do.

 

[Moonwalker]

Thankfully yes it does but we're not talking about the shuttle. I like "Snickers" bars but since this is an Orbiter forum maybe we should standardize on "Milky Way." C'mon, it's only one little bar of chocolate ...

Right. We're not talking about the Shuttle. We're talking about an even less complex and safer system (TPS) when talking about Orion and Ares

PS: I prefer Mars ice cream

 

[dougkeenan]

"Mars" - that's an even better choice for Orbinauts.

(Seriously I do think Orion will fly, just on another stack.)

 

[Michael Z Freeman]

The NASA funding for the ISS will end after 2016 which also is the defined end of the program:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budget_chart_14jan04.pdf

Thanks for the info .. I was trying to find that ! :speakcool:

Next time a human orbits the moon it will be NASA. ESA won't until 2020, Roscosmos won't too and the CNSA doesn't intend to land on the moon before 2024 anyway.

In terms of the ISS and what it has achieved,and what it is for ... this is my point. It couldn't have happened without Russia and now Europe with ATV.

So why is the USA taking this attitude with Constellation ? I've already heard of international partners being excluded from Ares. I think what has happened (and so does Friedman) is that the Bush mentality has taken over. What he calls "leadership" has leaked into the space arena. Real leadership allows a proper give and take with other players. Do we really want an American Moon base when it really could be "for all mankind" ? I still think a lot of what ISS has and is achieving is obscured by politics that continues to rule out flexibility in budget plans and international team work.

 

[Moonwalker]

So why is the USA taking this attitude with Constellation ?

NASA picks up its old vision of exploring the Moon followed by Mars. NASA sadly had to stop doing so by ending the Apollo program after Apollo 17, which was why Wernher von Braun and other great enginneers and even astronauts left NASA disappointed still in 1972.

I've already heard of international partners being excluded from Ares.

NASA didn't really exclude international partners since the Moon and Mars landing parts of Constellation isn't a joint project from the beginning.

I think what has happened (and so does Friedman) is that the Bush mentality has taken over. What he calls "leadership" has leaked into the space arena.

We always had a space arena less than ever with the Chinese in space manned now. People also seem to forget these days that NASA actually has the assignment to take a leading role in space achievement. This is why NASA was founded. It is not a Bush mentality. It already was Kennedy mentality who presented American mentality. Nothing new here.

Real leadership allows a proper give and take with other players. Do we really want an American Moon base when it really could be "for all mankind" ?

NASA is a big governmental body. If they decide to go to the Moon on their own, there is nothing wrong with it. NASA is not responsible for inviting ESA, Roscosmos or others on the Moon and Mars landing parts of Constellation. Like ESA doesn't have to invite NASA for Ariane or Roscosmos doesn't have to invite ESA or NASA for Soyuz. And not to mention the Chinese. It's all about decisions and not commitments luckily.

We might see international teamwork when a station on the Moon is going to become reality. But there are no commitments of doing so.

I still think a lot of what ISS has and is achieving is obscured by politics that continues to rule out flexibility in budget plans and international team work.

I think the bad thing is, which even Griffin also mentioned, that the STS and ISS was not the right path related to manned Moon and Mars mission anyway.

We have a gap of real manned space "exploration" since 1975, not only from 2010 to 2015. Skylab certainly was a good point to start preparing missions to Mars after we landed on the Moon 6 times and that almost perfectly. But Skylab sadly was abandoned for a very expensice system, the STS, designed for low earth orbit operations only. Although STS and ISS is a great achievement of spaceflight engineering, we now have to smooth away its difficulties related to manned Moon missions.

I personally call the manned US spaceflight program past Skylab 4 an unlucky situation related to missions beyond low earth orbit. While Europe and Russia don't have any serious visions of exploring the Moon manned and less than ever Mars (at least I don't know about). The ISS doesn't achieve anything in that direction yet. This is the problem and I think also the crux why NASA is taking that leading role once again.

The biggest contributor, as usual, of the ISS is NASA anyway. Honestly, ESA and Roscosmos (or in other words Ariane and Soyuz) don't impress me at all historically and at present. But that's just my opinion.

 

[GregBurch]

There is at least a possibility that private operators will be taking over parts of NASA's role on the ISS before its scheduled death. There's a LOT of useful infrastructure there (albeit in a too-highly-inclined orbit -- but that could be changed), and someone might pay the recurring costs to use it.

 

[Michael Z Freeman]

Mike Griffin says he is asked often whether the US will end its commitment to the space station in 2015. His answer is "I can't imagine that happening".
From the Moon, the US will go to the near-Earth asteroids and then to Mars.
"Things are going quite well" on the shuttle replacement, Ares-Orion, says Mr Griffin, despite what people read on "certain internet blogs".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7642014.stm

Or forums ?

GregBurch .. you introduce a bit of positivity to the discussion. Moonwalker ... yes, of course you may not be so impressed by ESA and Roskosmos, but frankly, you sound so CERTAIN about what you are saying ! We're talking about a planet sized space arena with zillions of players.

I've heard this "the ISS will end in 2015 and that's it" rap before, and it baffles me. It seems to have a touch of the arrogance about it (forgive me Moonwalker, I do find what you're saying interesting). The poster always "knows" what's going to happen. I'm more informed than most on space matters, but I certainly don't pretend to "know" what is going to happen to the ISS. Who was it who said "reports of my death have been greatly exgagerated" ?

 

[Moonwalker]

NASA won't end its commitment to the ISS in 2015 because the NASA funding still ends not until 2016. There are no different plans at the moment.

I sound certain that the ISS won't be used for flights to the Moon because it is a fact. Like already mentioned by Simonpro, those plans where abandoned in the 1990's already. NASA will use the AresV concept of flying to the Moon. There is nothing left to do guesswork about.

 

[GoodLaika511]

If The ISS just study the effect of long-term microgravity in human bodies, then it is really a waste of money(??), because they make it such a big station eh?:huh:.
I heard they have other purposes like international cooperation for space exploration and also other science experiments, but I heard they don't get much science there., the crew there are actually doing maintenance (??)

 

[Michael Z Freeman]

There is nothing left to do guesswork about.

OK. I'm not convinced myself. Thanks for the discussion. Maybe I should leave it there .

also other science experiments, but I heard they don't get much science there., the crew there are actually doing maintenance (??)

Well, give em' a chance ! According to this page ...

The laboratories of the International Space Station (ISS) are almost complete and key research facilities -- mini science laboratories -- are up and running.

All the Expedition experiments are linked on that page.


-----Posted Added-----

Dumb question but the primary mission of the iss is to study the earth? As well as parts of the solar system?

( Somehow back on topic :huh: )

Your question is not a dumb question, and you are not 100% incorrect ! Don't ever let anyone tell you that ...

Crew Earth Observations (CEO) takes advantage of the crew in space to observe and photograph natural and human-made changes on Earth. The photographs record the Earth?s surface changes over time, along with dynamic events such as storms, floods, fires and volcanic eruptions. These images provide researchers on Earth with key data to better understand the planet.

Source ( part of science experiments ).

 

[Moonwalker]

If The ISS just study the effect of long-term microgravity in human bodies, then it is really a waste of money(??), because they make it such a big station eh?:huh:.

Most microgravity experiments are related to material sciences because gravity can have some negative effects when doing such research on earth.

I heard they have other purposes like international cooperation for space exploration and also other science experiments, but I heard they don't get much science there., the crew there are actually doing maintenance (??)

At the moment most time indeed is spend for maintenance and less science, and of cource for assembling still. This might change by the arrival of Sojus TMA-15 (Expedition 19) next year, which will increase the number of steady crew members onboard from 3 to 6, and in 2010 by completing the assembly of the ISS.

Anyway, a lot of scientific capabilities were canceled, such as the Research Module, Science Power Platform, Centrifuge Accommodations Module. The ISS won't reach its initially planned scientific capabilities and number of crew members. And by the way, observation of the earth and solar system is rather minor onboard the ISS.

 

[simonpro]

The chance of the ISS being mothballed by 2015 is very slim. It would look downright bad on NASA if they abondoned it then (having spent such vast sums of money on it) and the other partners won't allow that.
For instance, ESA is currently budgeted for ATV flights to the ISS up until 2017, which would be a bit pointless if it were deorbited two years prior to that.

 

[Moonwalker]

The chance of the ISS being mothballed by 2015 is very slim.

Indeed. The NASA funding ends not until 2016 which means opeartion until at least 2017 I think. It might get extended for another very few years. But I think it won't be too long (maybe 2 or 3 more years) in order to prepare AresV for its first flight.

 

[simonpro]

to be honest it's unlikely that the ISS will last beyond about 2020 anyway, some of the equipment is already starting to degrade so after 20-odd years it'll be right at the end of it's service life.

 

[Moonwalker]

to be honest it's unlikely that the ISS will last beyond about 2020 anyway, some of the equipment is already starting to degrade so after 20-odd years it'll be right at the end of it's service life.

I think so too. The good old Mir wasn't really at a good shape during its final years as far as I know (I mean it became very high-maintenance?), and it was in orbit only 5 more years than ISS is in orbit today. But I'm not sure if this is comparable. At least the essembly of the ISS takes a lot of time and it doesn't age on the whole at the same time. But an operation beyond 2020 is a rather unlikely scenario anyway.

I wonder what ESA and Roscosmos are going to do once the ISS is history and the USA is flying to the Moon (if they'll do so).

 

[Urwumpe]

I wonder what ESA and Roscosmos are going to do once the ISS is history and the USA is flying to the Moon (if they'll do so).

Fly to Mars?

No, I think there will be a follow-up station, maybe even with an increased spending for spaceflight projects. A LEO staging point is a pretty practical thing when you plan for EOR missions as it simplifies assembly. Also, it there could also even direct economic reasons for a LEO station.

Humans have a clear advantage in flexibility over robots, which can be useful... after the robots have reached their limits.