What to do with the ISS

[The Silent Majority]

Quite a simple question, with the ISS reaching the end of its lifetime, what shall we do with it?

The plans I've seen/read are:

1. Controlled deorbit

2. Reboost, delaying the reentry

3. Attaching a VASMIR/similar propulsion system and sending it to Dun... MARS (Wikipedia, no idea of the feasibility, though I wouldn't count on it)

4. Gradual disassemble

What do you guys think we should do, and how? (not just these options, any you can think of)

[78stonewobble]

Isn't it still the russian plan to decouple their own parts and continue to use them?

[Seret]

The Russians can keep whatever bits they want, deorbit the rest. Build a new one.

[Nibb31]

Quite a simple question, with the ISS reaching the end of its lifetime, what shall we do with it?

The plans I've seen/read are:

1. Controlled deorbit

2. Reboost, delaying the reentry

3. Attaching a VASMIR/similar propulsion system and sending it to Dun... MARS (Wikipedia, no idea of the feasibility, though I wouldn't count on it)

4. Gradual disassemble

The programmed end of life for the ISS is 2024. By then, it will have lots of wear and tear. Seals, gaskets, filters, fluids will need replacing. Systems will be obsolete and some will be failing. The solar arrays will be producing less power. There will be MMOD damage. Insulation sheets will have degraded. Rotating joints will be stuck. It will get to a point where the crew will be spending more time on repairs and maintenance than on science activities.

1. Only possible option.

2. Why? End of life means that it's too old to be maintained.

3. Not possible, and again, why? If it's too old to be maintained in LEO why would it suddenly be fit to go anywhere else?

4. Why bother? And what would you do with the old parts?

The Russian plan is to separate their newest modules to serve as a core for their new OPSEK station. Of course, the oldest ones (Zarya and Zvezda) are part of the backbone of the station, so they will remain attached to the ISS. Then, a Progress docks to Zvezda and performs the deorbit burn.

[Tommygun]

It's probably too late now, but they should have constructed the station so all the modules where grouped together from oldest to newest in a way that they could have just easily detached the older sections as they became unserviceable.

They would of course have to send up a new module or solar panel every few years, but they could keep the station in indefinite use.

[Nibb31]

It's probably too late now, but they should have constructed the station so all the modules where grouped together from oldest to newest in a way that they could have just easily detached the older sections as they became unserviceable.

They would of course have to send up a new module or solar panel every few years, but they could keep the station in indefinite use.

But nobody wants to keep it that long. NASA and the other countries eventually want to move on with other projects. They can't do that if their budget is tied up in ISS maintenance.

[Tommygun]

But nobody wants to keep it that long. NASA and the other countries eventually want to move on with other projects. They can't do that if their budget is tied up in ISS maintenance.

True, but I thought it was mainly the US that wanted out?

[Aghanim]

So, what space station will replace ISS?

[Sky_walker]

The programmed end of life for the ISS is 2024. By then, it will have lots of wear and tear. Seals, gaskets, filters, fluids will need replacing. Systems will be obsolete and some will be failing. The solar arrays will be producing less power. There will be MMOD damage. Insulation sheets will have degraded. Rotating joints will be stuck. It will get to a point where the crew will be spending more time on repairs and maintenance than on science activities.

No offence, but: I call that BS.

ISS reached it's originally projected life span in 2013.

And yet by some miracle it still works just fine.

So, what space station will replace ISS?

More than one will.

We'll have at least one commercial station and at least one government-sponsored: Chinese.

What we'll see on top of that: Only time will tell. But as far as I see:

• US focused supporting private investors, so NASA is being slowly pushed aside (we can't even tell for sure if SLS will accomplish anything more than 2 initial missions),
  
• RSA will re-use it's own components and set up something in style of MIR-2,
  
• ESA is more interested in automated facilities than manned space stations,
  
• JAXA along with CSA don't have money to build proper manned space station.
  

Edited July 9, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Nibb31]

No offence, but: I call that BS.

ISS reached it's originally projected life span in 2013.

And yet by some miracle it still works just fine.

I've never heard of 2013 as an end-of-life date for the ISS. I think the first date was supposed to be 2014, but that was years ago before construction was delayed by the Columbia accident. After that, it was 2020 based on the aging of Zarya and Zvezda. The Russians now reckon they can keep it running until 2024.

The Solar Array Wings have a lifespan of 20 years, during which power output will degrade progressively (they lose 1 to 2% per year). They are not replaceable and scheduled to fail to produce enough power around 2028, plus or minus 5 years. By then, most of the electronics and life-support will also be worn out and obsolete and most of the science objectives will be done anyway.

It's always a matter of how much you want to spend to keep it running compared to the benefits. You can keep on driving your car for 50 years if you want to, but in the end, parts are going to get obsolete and harder to replace and it will eventually cost more than buying a new car. And in comparison, a new car will probably be faster, safer, more comfortable, and cheaper to run.

Of course, spacecraft are more expensive to repair than a car, because it takes more effort to produce and ship up the parts, the actual repairs are more complicated in an extreme environment, and the whole thing is permanently powered up and manned. It's like replacing an engine in a 747 while it's flying.

So, what space station will replace ISS?

There are no plans to replace the ISS. If they ever get a budget for it, NASA wants to build a mini-station located at EML-2 (the "Exploration Gateway") which would give Orion somewhere to go. Russia has plans to build OPSEK based on some modules that will be assembled at the ISS before its ended. And China, of course, wants to assemble Tiangong-3.

[Sky_walker]

I've never heard of 2013 as an end-of-life date for the ISS.

Zarya was launched in 1998 with planned life time of 15 years. It was the first module of ISS and by that: It's original life span.

As for the rest - I never said that ISS will have an infinite life span. Just that this whole talk about "rotating joints will be stuck" etc. is BS.

[Nibb31]

Zarya was launched in 1998 with planned life time of 15 years. It was the first module of ISS and by that: It's original life span.

As for the rest - I never said that ISS will have an infinite life span. Just that this whole talk about "rotating joints will be stuck" etc. is BS.

How do you know it's BS ? There are only so many replacement parts and parts like the SARJ joints are vital and hard to fix. NASA no longer has the capability to send up a new SARJ or a new SAW.

Some of the parts on the ISS are older than MIR was when it was deorbited. MIR had become obsolete and unsafe. Could it have been possible to extend its life? Yes. Was it worth it? No.

There isn't one single item that is going to get stuck (if only because things are designed to be redundant), but it's just going to get more and more complicated to fix more and more things that are going to degrade or break down.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

Could it have been possible to extend its life? Yes. Was it worth it? No.

I'll let experts decide that when the time comes instead of random forum folks.

What I know for sure is that ISS exceeded it's expected life time and there is no worthy replacement on a horizon, so whatever it'd be worth or not is very debatable right now, and everything is fluid in terms of decision making about ISS future.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Comrade Jenkens]

Deorbit and then build an ISS 2.

The SLS or Falcon Heavy can lift huge amounts into LKO and so a new station can go up much quicker and with less flights. In theory should save on cost.

[Seret]

I'll let experts decide that when the time comes instead of random forum folks.

They pretty much already have by putting an end-of-life date on the ISS. The engineers will have done a pretty exhaustive FMEA exercise to come up with that figure. Like you say, things have to remain subject to reassessment when you're dealing with predictions, sometimes risks can be managed as new tools become available, but in general you can't get away from the fact that as you move down the wrong end of the bathtub curve your risks do start to stack up alarmingly fast.

[ScallopPotato]

The ISS is meant to have a certification goal of 2028, with the mission being funded until at least 2024. Many documents I've seen state the ISS is critical part of research and preparation for humans to mars.

What comes next in LEO? I'm thinking Bigelow style inflatable stations. I can see space agencies like NASA buying an inflatable or leasing space on one to conduct scientific research. I also see research universities and the like doing the same. So, you could see private astronauts riding on private spacecraft to private space stations. "private" being not part of a space agency.

[peadar1987]

Deorbit and then build an ISS 2.

The SLS or Falcon Heavy can lift huge amounts into LKO and so a new station can go up much quicker and with less flights. In theory should save on cost.

lol @ LKO!

[Mr Shifty]

There was a 2012 proposal to use flight qualified ISS hardware (Destiny and the MPLM) for construction of a deep space habitat that could be used to visit EML1, EML2, ESL2, orbit the moon, service GEO satellites, etc. This wouldn't re-use the actual ISS modules, but would use the same construction plans to build new ones, since they've already been tested in space.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/dsh-module-concepts-outlined-beo-exploration/

Edited July 9, 2014 by Mr Shifty

[Comrade Jenkens]

lol @ LKO!

*Facepalm*

[Guest Fyre Flare]

Dissasemble. The ISS is to expensive to waste, It is the most expensive thing ever built.

Return It to earth to rebuild and do crap with It.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Dissasemble. The ISS is to expensive to waste, It is the most expensive thing ever built.

Return It to earth to rebuild and do crap with It.

Return it to Earth how, exactly? Aside from the difficulties of disassembling the station, none of the modules are designed to survive reentry, and don't have attitude control systems, parachutes, etc. You'd need to send up a complete spacecraft, with heat shield, landing system, deorbit thrusters, etc that could carry a 15' diameter module. The only spacecraft with any chance of doing that was the Shuttle (it flew Spacelab modules up and down, and those were comparable to an ISS module), but it's retired. The modules would fit in Skylon's cargo bay, but I haven't heard anything about its downmass capability. Also, at the current rate of development 2024 is the earliest Skylon could be flying.

Besides, what would you do with the modules once you landed them besides putting them in a museum? As mentioned, they'd be worn-out, obsolete technology. Most of the expensive stuff would have far cheaper alternatives for anything you might want to do on Earth, and refurbishing a 25-year-old module for spaceflight would probably be more expensive than building a shiny new inflatable module, and give you a lower-quality, less-safe vehicle.

Take a look at the prices for used (a couple hundred thousand miles) cars and RVs from the early 90s. Not too high, right? Now think about computer equipment from 1995. Outside an antiques dealer, it's going to be worthless except for scrap, because nobody looking for a new computer wants to deal with a machine that doesn't have the power to run a modern word processor and needs five adapter cables to connect to your backup drive.

You seem to be making the Sunk Cost Fallacy. The ISS may be the most expensive item ever built, but that money is already spent. The only thing that matters now is whether it is cheaper, safer, better to deorbit the station, disassemble and refurbish it, or attempt to extend its lifespan in orbit. Currently, the first option seems the best.

[montyben101]

I kind of wish/hope they bring some small part of the station back, not the whole thing though as that would be a waste of time and money

[JokingHinge]

Just make sure it lands in a junkyard and all the money will come back

[dryer_lint]

I was going to say "boost it and delay reentry", but if the systems are failing... maybe we should just deorbit it and record the re-entry with a bunch of cameras. Prefilmed sci-fi ​movie footage

[Mitchz95]

The next station should be a centrifuge with artificial gravity.