NASA wants to prolong ISS operation till 2028-2030

[Cassel]

Is this station too old and using it would not be too risky?
If NASA spends money on the ISS, what about the station's design in the orbit of the moon?
I have mixed feelings. What do you think about this?

http://tass.com/science/1022444

 

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

2045, International Space Station.

Spoiler

"2055 or Bust!"

 

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Xd the great]

Another reason to cancel the moon space station.

[Canopus]

5 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

Another reason to cancel the moon space station.

Why would this be a good reason to cancel the gateway?

[Xd the great]

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Why would this be a good reason to cancel the gateway?

Because why build a new space station when you can just reuse the old one?

[kerbiloid]

Probably ISS is the last orbital station of the pre-fusion epoch, as it's hard to imagine another 25-years-lasting development (especially without shuttles), and a reason to repeat similar experiments with a crewed station rather than starting something significantly harder (like artificial gravity or so).

So, without ISS they will lack any long-lasting manned activity in LEO.

A lunar orbital station makes sense only as a gateway to a lunar planetary station, but looks unlikely if it can keep being supported for decades at the today technical level.
While a LEO station can be looking at clouds, oceans, fishes, some events on the Earth, a lunar station can only look at the dead stones. So, its own scientific value is more poor.

So, I think ISS will stay in orbit until its rusty modules will begin leaking and decoupling.

Edited September 21, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Canopus]

Just now, Xd the great said:

Because why build a new space station when you can just reuse the old one?

The gateway operates in a totally different environment. Gateway experiments could not be conducted, and experience not be gained by just using the ISS.

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Why would this be a good reason to cancel the gateway?

Cost, and I personaly don't see much use for an space station in orbit around the moon in the current setting, now then you have regular flights to the moon and an base on the surface this changes.

[Canopus]

There is definitely use in maintaining a manned Space station in both LEO and a deep Space Environment. Now they wouldn't have to keep the ISS around if something like the Bigelow 330 was demonstrated and available. But as everything in commercial Space, this might take more time than everyone thinks.

[kerbiloid]

Afaik, the only Bigelow thing demostrated in orbit is a 2 m 4x3 m sphere with nobody inside.

So, they have some room to grow up.

Edited September 21, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Canopus]

9 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Afaik, the only Bigelow thing demostrated in orbit is a 2 m sphere with nobody inside.

So, they have some room to grow up.

To be fair the BEAM module is 3 by 4 meters. Still just a station module and nothing free flying.

[kerbiloid]

(Corrected)

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

Is this station too old and using it would not be too risky?

Generally the tradeoff is actually that when you push the design life farther it becomes more expensive. You can trade risk for money.

38 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Probably ISS is the last orbital station of the pre-fusion epoch

Fusion has always been 30 years away, and there is no evidence it's not at least 30 years away still today.

Edited September 21, 2018 by mikegarrison

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Fusion has always been 30 years away, and there is no evidence it's not at least 30 years away still today.

So, no reason to build another LEO station at the same tech level for 30 years.

[mikegarrison]

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, no reason to build another LEO station at the same tech level for 30 years.

Was there really a reason to build the first one? Be honest, is there really a reason for the ISS other than to prove we can do it?

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, mikegarrison said:

Was there really a reason to build the first one? Be honest, is there really a reason for the ISS other than to prove we can do it?

To keep the space industry make manned crafts to stay capable to do it.

Honour guard. An abandoned space demotivates. So, a mental health of humanity.

Several countries kinda saved some resources using each other's contributions. Otherwise they would build several separated ones with greater efforts.
As Spacelab experiments are limited with 2 weeks, while Mir-2 anyway was in order. Japan also used the existing infrastructure to support several modules.

So, at least ISS had not less reasons than a lunar station.
 

[Cassel]

50 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Was there really a reason to build the first one? Be honest, is there really a reason for the ISS other than to prove we can do it?

Early plans were very different than what we see today. I can't find article about this right now...

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

5 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Early plans were very different than what we see today. I can't find article about this right now...

"Meant well, done like always." 

 

[Canopus]

„Is there any reason for manned Space travel or exploratory probes?“

[Cassel]

7 minutes ago, Canopus said:

„Is there any reason for manned Space travel or exploratory probes?“

More well paid jobs?

[mikegarrison]

23 minutes ago, Canopus said:

„Is there any reason for manned Space travel or exploratory probes?“

Depends on your time horizon. I actually don't object to paying taxes that cover the ISS, despite that I am pretty sure it has no real reason to exist except that it gives us some experience at living in space.

[kerbiloid]

It's like a nature reserve in the open space. They keep a pack of humans there.

Also it's a part of scenery for popular culture. Like any such object it fills the plot in books and movies.

Say, who needs dry bones of dead big lizards? Why should somebody dig them and collect in museums?
But compare this to the whole industry exploitating dynos.

[tater]

Given finite NASA resources, I'm not sure this is feasible.

Other nations (or groups of nations) could actually pony up some real money (9 zeros) and support it for longer, though.

[mikegarrison]

29 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It's like a nature reserve in the open space. They keep a pack of humans there.

Also it's a part of scenery for popular culture. Like any such object it fills the plot in books and movies.

Say, who needs dry bones of dead big lizards? Why should somebody dig them and collect in museums?
But compare this to the whole industry exploitating dynos.

It's damn cool to see fly overhead in the night sky.

Edited September 21, 2018 by mikegarrison

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It's damn cool to see fly overhead in the night sky.

It's damn cool to have something to be crashed in every second space thriller, from Gravity to asteroid hits.