The iss decomissioning

[Moon Goddess]

I honestly doubt we'll ever see anything substantial from NASA ever again, as it doesn't matter what they plan, it take time to build things and no matter what they build everything they have planned will be cancelled and they'll be told to go in a new direction every 4 or 8 years.

[DChurchill]

Honestly, humans should get our **** together here before we even think about going to another planet.

I might be a shade cynical, but that's never gonna happen. Getting our **** together, that is. The other planet thing might happen.

I honestly doubt we'll ever see anything substantial from NASA ever again, as it doesn't matter what they plan, it take time to build things and no matter what they build everything they have planned will be cancelled and they'll be told to go in a new direction every 4 or 8 years.

QFT. Fortunately we have Space X and other private firms who will pick up the slack. I expect to see some good unmanned missions from them, though.

[King Arthur]

Why burn it up? Why not put it up into a graveyard orbit? Is that just untenable from a propulsion standpoint?

Would make a great 'space archaeological' site for the future!

Unfortunately, the LEO that ISS is in slowly decays due to (very) faint atmosphere still present. The ISS needs to be boosted every-so-often by a Progress, ATV, or a Space Shuttle back when it was still flying, so that it won't re-enter the Earth's atmosphere proper and becoming a hurtling fireball like Skylab. Hubble is also on a decaying LEO for the same reason, and is why STS-125 left a small docking adapter on HST to be used by a future mission to de-orbit or push HST out to a higher non-decaying orbit.

As for why not leave it up there? Money. It costs money to haul the propellant and engine(s) needed to manuever the ISS (or the HST for that matter) to a higher non-decaying orbit, and it costs even more money for the launch vehicle to loft all of that propellant to orbit. Leaving the ISS/HST on a non-decaying orbit also contributes to worsening the situation of orbital debris that we have. Consequently the best course of action usually is to de-orbit rather than push it out to HEO or leaving it on a decaying LEO.

Next space station will be Chinese... they are planing for 2020. see this article on space.com about CSP (China Space Program): http://www.space.com/22474-china-space-program-empire.html

China's space station is the one and only space station that I expect to have a chance at being realized, but I cannot come to accept that China's space station would actually be worth anything in a scientific or socially constructive sense since it's blatantly obvious that China is trying to "one up" the NASA/JAXA/ESA/Roscosmos party, rather than having the advancement of humanity as their core goal. China's space station is completely for political purposes rather than science.

Of course, it could be said that political gain is one effective way to kickstart space exploration, the Space/Moon race is one such example.

I honestly doubt we'll ever see anything substantial from NASA ever again, as it doesn't matter what they plan, it take time to build things and no matter what they build everything they have planned will be cancelled and they'll be told to go in a new direction every 4 or 8 years.

I think it's a sign that NASA needs to learn to have quicker turn around times for getting projects off the ground (not neccesarily scientific return, mind you). Take the James Webb Space Telescope, the presumed semi-successor to the Hubble Space Telescope: Nobody needs to tell me for me to realize that the scientific finds of JWST will be spectacular just like Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra (The Great Observatories) have been, but it's also completely inexcusable how inefficiently and wastefully the project has progressed over the years marred by delays, cost-overruns, and crappy management; when Congress (as useless as they are) says they want to kill JWST, I can sadly see why.

P.S. The PR regarding Commander Hadfield has come off to me, personally, as PR regarding Commander Hadfield himself rather than the ISS at large (you could probably ask someone who Hadfield is and get a proper answer, but that same person might not know a thing/care about the ISS). Note that I do in fact respect everyone involved with the ISS, I may not neccesarily hold a positive opinion of the ISS but I still try to understand the kind of work that needs to happen for the ISS to fly and I respect each and every person involved (or was involved) with the project regardless of my opinion of the station itself.

Edited August 22, 2013 by King Arthur

[Mr Shifty]

Personally, I hope SpaceX and co will succeed as a commercial business and stay around for a long time since competition is a good thing, but as of right now one has to admit that they don't have much going for them at the moment besides their planned trips to the ISS. The current LEO delivery market is utterly dominated by the ULA and ESA, and other (government-backed!) space agencies like JAXA who have tried to make headway into this market have found the amount of entrenchment that ULA/ESA has built up to be quite the hurdle to overcome.

SpaceX already has about 25 launch contracts set up for the next two years, not including ISS re-supply missions. I think they're going to be fine:

http://www.spacex.com/missions

[OrbitusII]

There is no money to be made in space exploration, so it's HIGHLY unlikely SpaceX will continue without the ISS.

What about mining asteroids*? Research? Publicity?

Yes, space travel is expensive, but it's not so expensive that it will be impossible to make a profit off of what we do. Space travel will continue to be expensive and not very profitable for a while, but that's not to say it will never be profitable. There's many more fields that can be exploited in space than the three I mentioned.

*This is a difficult endeavor, don't get me wrong, but it can still be profitable if we keep the supply and demand of space-mined resources in check.

[Mr Shifty]

I honestly doubt we'll ever see anything substantial from NASA ever again, as it doesn't matter what they plan, it take time to build things and no matter what they build everything they have planned will be cancelled and they'll be told to go in a new direction every 4 or 8 years.

Just last year, NASA put a 7 foot tall robot on Mars. They're launching LADEE next month and MAVEN in November. Dawn is well on its way to Ceres. MESSENGER is still orbiting Mercury. New Horizons will arrive at Pluto in a couple years. Cassini has been gathering info on Saturn and its moons for nearly 10 years. Juno is half-way to Jupiter. etc etc etc

[Diche Bach]

Space is obviously profitable as everyone wants their geosynchronous satellite. But I don't think you need a "space program" per se to put up satellites around the Earth.

[7499275]

There will be another station, it may be a few decades after the ISS crashes down, humans have a nature to have to know more, and space is one place we can discover infinitely new things, it will take a Government willing to fund NASA and many private companies but I think we can make a station more capable then the ISS. Personally I would rather see a new moon mission before a station. Just my two cents

[jwenting]

The US have given up on space (certainly manned spaceflight and anything not related to snooping on people), Russia holds out on space tourists and the long term contracts to ferry people to the ISS which will end in a few years, Europe never had a space program to speak of.

Leaves China, some commercial satellite launch companies, and startups like India and Japan which aren't going to go beyond launching some satellites of their own any time soon, if ever.

So yes, mankind is giving up, lost its spirit of exploration and expansion, and resigned itself to an old age and eventual quiet extinction back in the cradle.

[NovaSilisko]

I was about to suggest this be moved to the science forum but then read the thread content. Carry on...

[czokletmuss]

So as many of you know, the iss wil probably be decomissioned after 2020. So what do you guys think wil happen after the iss has crashed into the ocean?

Personaly I hope that we are going to get some private space stations (boeing, space x, etc) as wel as a new moon program.

This will happen:

CNSA already put space lab Tiangong-1 up there, this year they are launching Tiangong-2. With docked Shenzhou (Chinese Soyuz more or less) it looks like this:

Other than this we can only speculate what NASA, ESA or any other agency of private company come up with.

So yes, mankind is giving up, lost its spirit of exploration and expansion, and resigned itself to an old age and eventual quiet extinction back in the cradle.

Have you read "Titan" by Stephen Baxter?

[Francesco]

There is no money to be made in space exploration, so it's HIGHLY unlikely SpaceX will continue without the ISS.

SpaceX will continue, as long as there will be satellites to be put into orbit.

[King Arthur]

The US have given up on space (certainly manned spaceflight and anything not related to snooping on people), Russia holds out on space tourists and the long term contracts to ferry people to the ISS which will end in a few years, Europe never had a space program to speak of.

Leaves China, some commercial satellite launch companies, and startups like India and Japan which aren't going to go beyond launching some satellites of their own any time soon, if ever.

So yes, mankind is giving up, lost its spirit of exploration and expansion, and resigned itself to an old age and eventual quiet extinction back in the cradle.

I apologize for being blunt, but I cannot fathom the sheer level of ignorance and disrespect in this post.

NASA has most definitely not given up on space exploration. Yes, NASA's manned space program is facing hard times, but its unmanned space program is flourishing like never before with missions like the Great Observatories (Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra Space Telescopes), New Horizons, Cassini-Huygens (together with ESA), Spirit/Opportunity, Curiosity, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the Voyagers, the Pioneers, Kepler Space Telescope, and soon hopefully the James Webb Space Telescope, as well as a lot more missions to be launched in the future.

Roscosmos, even with its funding ills, has continued to prevail as one of the most enduring space agencies around. In fact, Roscosmos is currently the only provider of manned space travel, and this will likely continue to be true for the forseeable future. They also have the financial and infrastructural capabilities to support a counterpart to the US GPS, the GLONASS.

The ESA is by all rights a proper space agency representing Europe. They are the backbone behind the Ariane launchers and are one of the "big two" in commercial payload launch providers together with the ULA (United Launch Alliance) today, and are also closely connected with NASA, JAXA, and Roscosmos in space exploration, often collaborating on many fields and missions together; the ESA are also involved with the ISS through the Columbus laboratory module and service missions through the ATVs.

JAXA (Japan) and India are most definitely not "startups", and as a Japanese-American I am downright offended you would say this.

JAXA has launched Hayabusa, a successful sample return mission from an asteroid that involved state-of-the-art technologies; they launched Kaguya (aka SELENE) which shot and sent back the first HD videos of an "Earth rise" from lunar orbit and contributed to mapping the lunar surface in unprecedented detail together with the NASA LRO; they boast the HTV (which sports autonomous piloting that matches or even surpasses the Russian Progress!) and the H-2B launch vehicle which currently service the ISS, with the HTV having the potential to be turned into a manned spacecraft thanks to having a fully pressurized compartment currently used for cargo; they are involved with the ISS through the Kibou ("Hope") laboratory module; they also launched a small satelite network that augments the US GPS constellation over the areas of Japan, Korea, South East Asia, and Australia for better reception and telemetric accuracy; they also maintain a plethora of lesser-known Earth research and monitoring satelites much like how other space agencies like NASA and ESA do.

Last but not least, JAXA works together deeply with NASA and ESA on a wide range of fields and missions. I personally view NASA, JAXA, ESA, and Roscosmos as the "Big 4" of the space agencies around the world because of their size and the influence they have on space exploration at large.

India for its part launched the Chandrayaan-1 lunar satelite which has worked together with NASA's LRO throughout their missions, and they also routinely launch satelites into orbit. I am sadly not familiar with India's space program, but I know enough to know they are far more than a "startup".

Even China, despite being blatantly obvious that their space program is completely for political gains rather than science or for the public good, is being almost absurdly optimistic about its mission objectives with their manned spaceflights and currently planned space station. It should also be mentioned that China launched a lunar satelite during the same period when NASA launched the LRO and JAXA their Kaguya to the Moon, which also took part along with its NASA, JAXA, and Indian counterparts in mapping the lunar surface.

In closing, I might be a "Negative Nancy" that's playing the role of Devil's Advocate somewhat in this discussion, but even I do not hold a view of the world as cynical and ignorant as you described. A lot of time, effort, hard work, and in many cases blood and tears, are spent to move forward in exploring space and advancing technologies in literally almost every field of science. All of the people involved, the astronauts, the engineers, the scientists, the doctors, the professors, the mechanics, everyone involved and/or was involved in space exploration deserves every last bit of gratitude and respect that we can give them for what they are doing and have done; to give anything less is tantamount to insult in my humble opinion.

[Mr Shifty]

A lot of time, effort, hard work, and in many cases blood and tears, are spent to move forward in exploring space and advancing technologies in literally almost every field of science. All of the people involved, the astronauts, the engineers, the scientists, the doctors, the professors, the mechanics, everyone involved and/or was involved in space exploration deserves every last bit of gratitude and respect that we can give them for what they are doing and have done; to give anything less is tantamount to insult in my humble opinion.

Thank you. For some reason, the rep buttons aren't appearing for me on this thread, but just thanks for this post.

[czokletmuss]

I too couldn't find the reputation button but kudos for you.

[cantorobriar]

I would like to ask for people to stop sharing opinions in this thread, and instead share factual information. Don't get me wrong, some of you are very right in your statements, but for the others, at least do a little research before you start making claims. NASA and the USAF have been very busy developing experimental alternatives to the space shuttle program. They plan to make "space-planes", which will be the size of a small fighter jet and launched on a rocket covered in a fairing. It is unsure if they will ever even be successful. And, as you SHOULD know, most of NASA's rockets are PRIVATELY MANUFACTURED. Even the fuel, NASA just has the mission control and launch sites. These companies, like Orbital Sciences in Virginia, and Boeing, could launch their own space programs if they really wanted to and thought the investment was worth it. If NASA shuts down, it's very likely that a rich company will come along and start a private one. There are ALREADY private ones that offer tours of space. How do you think Bieber got a music video in space? Just look at everyone who WANTS to go to space. JAXA and the European space agency are off to a great start, and I would bet you that the ISS will be soon replaced after it has crashed down, probably in the ocean to avoid causing any disruption. At the moment, Orbital Sciences is manufacturing more craft that allow NASA to go to the International Space Station for a cheaper price that it would cost them to launch a shuttle. A shuttle requires 200 million dollars to service after each flight, and that doesn't include the launch vehicle, which is another 700-800 million. The Buran program would have cost more than that if Russia ever decided to continually use it. In summary, humanity is FAR from ever giving up on space exploration, if we ever do. Even when there are risks, humans continue to do it.

[Nibb31]

I would like to ask for people to stop sharing opinions in this thread, and instead share factual information. Don't get me wrong, some of you are very right in your statements, but for the others, at least do a little research before you start making claims. NASA and the USAF have been very busy developing experimental alternatives to the space shuttle program. They plan to make "space-planes", which will be the size of a small fighter jet and launched on a rocket covered in a fairing. It is unsure if they will ever even be successful. And, as you SHOULD know, most of NASA's rockets are PRIVATELY MANUFACTURED. Even the fuel, NASA just has the mission control and launch sites. These companies, like Orbital Sciences in Virginia, and Boeing, could launch their own space programs if they really wanted to and thought the investment was worth it. If NASA shuts down, it's very likely that a rich company will come along and start a private one. There are ALREADY private ones that offer tours of space. How do you think Bieber got a music video in space? Just look at everyone who WANTS to go to space. JAXA and the European space agency are off to a great start, and I would bet you that the ISS will be soon replaced after it has crashed down, probably in the ocean to avoid causing any disruption. At the moment, Orbital Sciences is manufacturing more craft that allow NASA to go to the International Space Station for a cheaper price that it would cost them to launch a shuttle. A shuttle requires 200 million dollars to service after each flight, and that doesn't include the launch vehicle, which is another 700-800 million. The Buran program would have cost more than that if Russia ever decided to continually use it. In summary, humanity is FAR from ever giving up on space exploration, if we ever do. Even when there are risks, humans continue to do it.

There is no point in asking people to stick to factual information and then spew off misinformation and stuff that you've read about Justin Bieber.

[Kryten]

I like how he says it's unclear the X-37 'will ever be successful'. You know, the thing that's already been launched three times.

[Vaebn]

How quickly they forget that inflatable thing from Bigelow...

[shoveycat]

Hopefully in 10, 20 years, with the (Hopefully) inevitable creation of Skylon and other spaceplane/SSTO's, space tourism will become cheap enough that a space station can become commercially reasonable.

[Holo]

Honestly, humans should get our **** together here before we even think about going to another planet.

Sounds reasonable. So what's the timescale on "getting our **** together"? Ten years? Fifteen?

If we always thought like that, the Americas would never have been colonised by Europeans.

[NGTOne]

Hopefully in 10, 20 years, with the (Hopefully) inevitable creation of Skylon and other spaceplane/SSTO's, space tourism will become cheap enough that a space station can become commercially reasonable.

The thing I don't get is why everyone is hung up on space tourism. Long-term, space industry/manufacturing has much more economic promise than tourism, even without space resource extraction (but far more with it). Tourism, as a sector, tends to develop long after manufacturing and heavy industry. Why should space be different?

Edited October 6, 2013 by NGTOne

[razark]

Tourism, as a sector, tends to develop long after manufacturing and heavy industry. Why should space be different?

Because space tourism is a thing that happens now, but space manufacturing isn't?

However, I do see cheap tourism developing after industry brings about a reduction in launch costs.

[NGTOne]

Because space tourism is a thing that happens now, but space manufacturing isn't?

However, I do see cheap tourism developing after industry brings about a reduction in launch costs.

OK, perhaps I should clarify - there's always a few wealthy people who are tourists before a new part of the world is developed (visitors from Europe to the New World who had no interest in settling down, for instance). However, by and large, throughout human history (and especially modern history), an industrial sector tends to establish itself long before tourism becomes a dominant economic force.

[softweir]

I thought this thread best belongs in the Science Labs which is here to discuss real-world science and space topics.