What to do with the ISS

[KaBob]

I could see them maybe deciding to boost a few pieces of it into a more stable orbit but some parts of the ISS were sent up in the 90s and should really just be deorbited when the time comes. Better to take everything we have learned since 1998 and build a new one. Although I have to admit it would be really interesting if they turned some of the modules into makeshift space probes and pushed them out into solar orbit. I imagine it would end up costing more than launching an actual satellite though =p

I also wonder how much fuel it would take to push some or all of it into a stable orbit around the moon. Not to be used as a space station but just to keep it intact to either become a museum decades from now or to be recycled for materials for a future moon station or base. Completely unrealistic but it would be cool.

[R0cketC0der]

Currently it already gets boosted to delay reentry all the time. It's done by either docked progress or ATV spacecraft or by the main engines on the Zvezda module. This only takes about 2m/s per month, so it isn't a very difficult task.

[Javster]

As long as they keep that guitar that they had on Mir too...

[Roastduck]

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.

Did a quick Google search, and every source I'm finding mentions the original planned end of service as being 2016, but it has now been extended to 2020. Russia refused a request to extend it to 2024 in March when the whole Ukraine thing really heated up.

[WafflesToo]

Here's the list of repairs and maintnance procedures that have been done on the ISS to date (mind you , this is from wikipedia so it should not be considered complete by any stretch). You will notice that serious failures are becoming more common as time moves on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance

By the time NASA convinced the RSA that the Mir should be abandoned and deorbited it was in a very poor state of repair and was a demonstratable hazard to its crew. The ISS will have to be abandoned eventually, we shouldn't cling to it for that long, though I think 2020 or 2024 are pretty realistic lifespan numbers just glancing things over. That makes it, what, close to 30 years old? Most seagoing ships don't live that long.

Besides, as has been stated, most of the newest modules will be migrated to other stations and projects, I know the RSA will be reusing the last few modules they delivered elsewhere.

[RocketPilot573]

Attach fuel tanks and engines to it, then fly it too mars.

[cpast]

Attach fuel tanks and engines to it, then fly it too mars.

Well, that sounds expensive, dangerous, and infeasible.

[Nibb31]

Attach fuel tanks and engines to it, then fly it too mars.

Did you miss the point where the hardware was at the end of its useful life ?

And of course, it isn't designed for interplanetary travel or for the thrust effort of an interplanetary burn. It would be like attaching wings to a submarine to make it fly.

[78stonewobble]

Maybe a little off topic here... But I want to toss this up into the air...

Based on what we've learned so far from salyut, mir and ISS, how do we build a space station, that can last perhaps 50-100 years, or even permanently?

[Sky_walker]

Based on what we've learned so far from salyut, mir and ISS, how do we build a space station, that can last perhaps 50-100 years, or even permanently?

Based on what we learnt from over a 100 years spent building airplanes - how do we build an airplane, that can fly perhaps 50-100 years, or even permanently?

It's the same sort of question.

Nothing is permanent. Not even earth crust.

[jwenting]

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.

The space agencies are eagerly waiting for your multibillion dollar donation.

[78stonewobble]

Based on what we learnt from over a 100 years spent building airplanes - how do we build an airplane, that can fly perhaps 50-100 years, or even permanently?

It's the same sort of question.

Nothing is permanent. Not even earth crust.

I meant more along the lines of ie:

Maximising lifetime of the outer hull, so we don't have to replace modules too often.

Making solar panels replaceable.

Making sure that most parts and cabling are accessible from the inside for repair and replacement.

Engineering the docking to allow for replacement of modules over longer timescales.

What altitude and what onboard production is needed to save on resupply missions?

That kinda stuff, because as you say nothing lasts forever...

But if we're gonna replace the ISS, lets make it somewhat more futureproof and perhaps cheaper in the long run, so that there can be a long run.

[Sky_walker]

Maximising lifetime of the outer hull, so we don't have to replace modules too often.

Making solar panels replaceable.

Making sure that most parts and cabling are accessible from the inside for repair and replacement.

Engineering the docking to allow for replacement of modules over longer timescales.

What altitude and what onboard production is needed to save on resupply missions?

1. There are many ideas, none of them practical or tested. ISS already has got maximized lifetime of it's outer hull, at least: as much as it is financially feasible (eg. modules pointing "forward" got better protection than these in a "rear").

2. ISS SAW are already replacable

3. Again: the same problem as with the airplane. There's only as much as you can put inside accessible to the crew, and there's always a price attached to that (eg. a risk of fire or accidentally breaking something)

4. ISS modules already can be detached from the station (and by this: replaced with a new one, though obviously replacing some would be very complex as they have more than one other component attached to them)

5. Higher altitude is better in a sense that it means less atmospheric drag, but also: more expensive launches and heavier protection from a radiation. Food in theory could be produced on the station - but this requires launching of large and heavy modules that consume power and add to the volume (=risk), and they still need to be resupplied (plants can't live on a light alone).

But if we're gonna replace the ISS, lets make it somewhat more futureproof and perhaps cheaper in the long run, so that there can be a long run.

NASA is a major investor in ISS. And NASA got a huge problem: Presidents that change goals and ideas as soon as they get in the office. So.... let's put it this way: I have my doubts if ISS will have any direct replacement. At least: not until US will regain a capacity of sending man into space on it's own.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Seret]

I imagine a fair bit of a space station's systems are already designed as line replaceable units. Where you'll run into problems with end of life is big chunky structural bits. You've got large trusses to provide structure, eventually fatigue will become an issue with these, so you'd need to build in a lot of redundancy to make them replaceable in flight. That's a lot of extra mass, so expensive. Every module is also a pressure vessel, so again you've got a lifetime limited by materials issues there. Luckily as you say these can be replaced by ditching the old one and docking a fresh one, so as long as you've planned for that it needn't be an insurmountable issue.

I think a permanently maintainable station is definitely doable from an engineering point of view, it would just be more expensive to build than a disposable one. Not necessarily a bad idea though, assuming there was a long-term commitment to support it.

[R0cketC0der]

I have my doubts if ISS will have any direct replacement. At least: not until US will regain a capacity of sending man into space on it's own.

US seems likely to regain this capacity far before the ISS will be deorbited. The SpaceX dragon V2 and the Sierra Nevada DreamChaser is planned to fly as early as 2016 and the the Boeing CST-100 is planned to fly early 2017. It seems highly unlikely that all of these will fail.

[Sky_walker]

Certainly.

Though in the end if everything will rely on commercial components - from spacecrafts (mentioned by you), through launch systems (Falcon) down to components (Bigelow) - then is it really a successor to ISS or rather: First ever commercial space station?

US - as a government - isn't on a good way to regain a capacity of sending man into space. Orion test flight is to be launched in December, but the first manned flight is planned for 2020 - that's 6 years gap. 6 years during which new president / management might change plans just as it happened many times before with other NASA manned space programs. SLS has met a lot of criticism and push from many people to replace it completely with private systems.

And as far as I know - NASA didn't even begun to plan any replacement for ISS.

To compare:

Chinese are at a stage of realizing very concrete roadmap for their Tiangong Space Station.

Russians already have started sending a components for their OPSEK Space Station that will replace ISS for them.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Elthy]

They should simply deorbit it. The firework will be impressive, if im able to i would travel there to watch it...

When they ever launch a replacement i would like to see in on top of a SLS. With the large diameter it wouldnt be as cramped as a submarine...

[R0cketC0der]

They should simply deorbit it. The firework will be impressive, if im able to i would travel there to watch it...

When they ever launch a replacement i would like to see in on top of a SLS. With the large diameter it wouldnt be as cramped as a submarine...

The ISS isn't really that cramped. Most modules are about 4m in diameter and it has a total inhabitable volume of more than 800m³ for only six people. Also, with inflatable modules you wouldn't really need a large fairing to bring up lots of volume.

Edit: besides, the SLS isn't made to bring stuff to LEO. It is designed for high energy orbits.

[Comrade Jenkens]

besides, the SLS isn't made to bring stuff to LEO. It is designed for high energy orbits.

Falcon heavy could work? That's deigned for bringing things to LEO.

[Nibb31]

They should simply deorbit it. The firework will be impressive, if im able to i would travel there to watch it...

When they ever launch a replacement i would like to see in on top of a SLS. With the large diameter it wouldnt be as cramped as a submarine...

If they launch a "Skylab 2.0" based on the diameter of the SLS, it will be partioned into small rooms anyway. During Skylab, they found that it wasn't practical to have large open areas, because you can easily float into the middle and get stuck with nothing to catch on to! ISS modules are sized so that there is always a handrail in reach or a wall to push yourself off of.

[Sky_walker]

SLS is made to bring stuff to LEO just fine.

Read this: http://archive.feedblitz.com/632435/~4093308

because you can easily float into the middle and get stuck with nothing to catch on to!

No imagination... none at all.

Just use your mouth as an RCS thruster.

Butt could work too, though it's Isp is much lower...

[shynung]

Just use your mouth as an RCS thruster.

Butt could work too, though it's Isp is much lower...

ME: Darn it, I'm stuck in the middle again. Looks like I'll have to use my 'OMS'.(farts repeatedly)

OTHER ASTRONAUT: (disgusted) Okay shynung, that's enough! Grab my hand.

[Javster]

You'd have to do it on purpose to get stuck in the middle. Surely you'd have some velocity when you move away from the side?

[NASAFanboy]

Certainly.

And as far as I know - NASA didn't even begun to plan any replacement for ISS.

http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/skylab-ii-living-beyond-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-130414.htm

http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep-space-station-skylab2.html

http://www.space.com/14518-nasa-moon-deep-space-station-astronauts.html

http://io9.com/5946149/nasa-wants-to-build-a-permanent-outpost-beyond-the-moon

Proposed by Boeing and supported by Lockheed and much other NASA companies along with providing a use for the SLS and sastifying most Congressional representatives/inner NASA factions, I think NASA already is drawing up plans for the outpost and will most likely do it after the Asteroid Redirect Mission (If that ever gets off the ground).

EDIT: Darn, didn't see previous posts.

[Sky_walker]

I heard about both of them - and as far as I recall: these were nothing more than a random ideas thrown around by people linked to NASA / from NASA. As far as I'm aware - neither moon base nor deep space outpost entered any planning phase focused on an actual missions and realization of these ideas.

Things like dates, budgets, planned launches, components, etc. are nowhere to be found and to make things worse: It looks like NASA already got some rough idea about SLS launches till 2032 with none of them being reserved for ISS replacement - which isn't particularly encouraging once you consider that ISS founding is safe only till 2024 and first SLS cargo launch is planned for 2026 (though IMHO: there's not a chance they'd retire ISS so early).

I think NASA already is drawing up plans for the outpost and will most likely do it after the Asteroid Redirect Mission (If that ever gets off the ground).

Weren't day suppose to make an low orbital moon flight and then in a next mission: landing? After the NEA Mission (which is planned for 2021, 7 years from now)?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Sky_walker