What to do with the ISS

[NASAFanboy]

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)?

The Moon orbital flight still will happen, except it will hook up with a asteroid tug and perform the manned part of the ARM while swinging outward from the Moon. A landing mission that is solely run by NASA is out of the cards, although NASA has given approval for Golden Spike to develop its own manned lunar landers and may seek to partner with it in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they made it to the Moon in 2024 (Somewhat before or after the Chinese) and established a small outpost by 2027.

Also, you would be interested to know that the CEO of Orbital Sciences supports extending the ISS's mission to 2050. 2050.

[78stonewobble]

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).

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.

It's all stuff needed, for a 50 year plus lifetime replacement for the ISS.

Large component life time needs to be maximised, small components needs to be easily replaced and maintained and it needs to be as self sufficient as possible. Furthermore it will need to provide atleast the ability to expand itself into some kind of profitable space endeavour or be able to function as a base for building such things.

Otherwise space- stations/exploration will be a bust forever.

...

Regarding the last part. I completely agree... The space policy of the US have been quite a bit all over the place and large procurements like in the military has been... meh to say the least.

[78stonewobble]

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.

Well, I don't know if it's actually worth it from a cost/benefit ratio with longterm permanent vs. shortterm disposable, but if the ISS's pricetag is any indication, combined with the servicing over the years then I think it will be a hard sells to stockholders (should it be a private spacestation) or voters.

The wiki cites a cost of 7,5 million $ per day per person. So space tourism would need around ie. 2857 people capable and willing of paying atleast 52.500.000 $ ... Then comes profits...

I don't see people jumping on that investment. Something needs to change...

[Nibb31]

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?

You can be busy doing something and slowly drift away. Of course, you will always reach a wall after a while, and it's not a life-threatening situation, but it can be an inconvenience. It happened occasionally enough on Skylab for NASA to decide that any future space habitats should have a requirement that astronauts are always in reach of a wall. You won't see any large open spaces in a space station habitat any time soon.

[Sky_walker]

Well, I don't know if it's actually worth it from a cost/benefit ratio with longterm permanent vs. shortterm disposable, but if the ISS's pricetag is any indication, combined with the servicing over the years then I think it will be a hard sells to stockholders (should it be a private spacestation) or voters.

ISS is a scientific station launched into space mostly with Space Race-era equipment. Commercial space station would be by far cheaper. Even for a sole reason that it won't have all the scientific equipment on it.

The Moon orbital flight still will happen, except it will hook up with a asteroid tug and perform the manned part of the ARM while swinging outward from the Moon.

Hm... last time I read about: ARM and low moon orbit flight were too very separate things (even solely by the altitude of planned flights).

A landing mission that is solely run by NASA is out of the cards, although NASA has given approval for Golden Spike to develop its own manned lunar landers and may seek to partner with it in the future.

Nah, there's more than one private company seeking a moon landing - we're talking here about the US and by this: NASA.

I know quite well about what the commercial sector is doing, but on a level of governments - NASA with each year is being pulled back and back while competitors like China (Chang'e program) and Russia (Luna-Glob) step in (actually: even Japan got some rough idea about that, though considering their budget and materials released I find it highly unlikely to come into fruition*).

* yes, even comparing to Russian plans the JAXA moon base looks to be a highly unlikely one. Russia got something Japan doesn't: a strong political leader that's interested in space exploration. That combined with borderline-authoritarian model of the government where Putin is nearly a sole ruler in the country means that if he would want to have a lunar base - he would most likely get it, even if budget goes way over the board and technical capabilities are not there right now (just look at the last Putin toys: Crimea or Winter Olympics - Putin says, Putin gets.).

I wouldn't be surprised if they made it to the Moon in 2024 (Somewhat before or after the Chinese) and established a small outpost by 2027.

Me either. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they'd go bankrupt before landing any human on a moon.

Also, you would be interested to know that the CEO of Orbital Sciences supports extending the ISS's mission to 2050. 2050.

Well, that would require swapping at least solar panels and radiators on ISS. Solar Array Wings alone were a cost of $600,000,000. And I'm quite certain that there will be plenty more to do - even more so as Russians might want to separate form ISS by that time and proceed OPSEK. Suddenly Skylab 2 starts to look like a good deal.

Though I imagine ESA would want everyone to keep calm and keep the ISS or push for a direct successor as they have no interest in building a station on their own (ESA is focused more on robotic exploration), but would gladly hook up to someone else... though that's hard to predict as ESA management is always very silent about their plans up till they actually start to build something and sign the contracts.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Tex]

No matter what is done, the HDEV cameras need to broadcast the deorbit. THAT would be awesome/sad to see.

[78stonewobble]

ISS is a scientific station launched into space mostly with Space Race-era equipment. Commercial space station would be by far cheaper. Even for a sole reason that it won't have all the scientific equipment on it.

Somewhat cheaper. Yes, but will it be enough?

Ie. If we want 6 days in space to "only" cost the same as the top end ferrari, then we will need a reduction in cost from the ISS numbers of 77 %. I don't think that's likely.

I don't really believe in space tourism paving the way to space. It seems to be a small niche market, with little competition and unlikely to lower the cost of practical access to space.

[Sky_walker]

Somewhat cheaper. Yes, but will it be enough?

Ie. If we want 6 days in space to "only" cost the same as the top end ferrari, then we will need a reduction in cost from the ISS numbers of 77 %. I don't think that's likely.

I don't really believe in space tourism paving the way to space. It seems to be a small niche market, with little competition and unlikely to lower the cost of practical access to space.

Not "somewhat" - by far cheaper.

AFAIK detailed split of ISS operation from any agency cost isn't available to public, but to give you rough idea:

• Out of US $100b contribution $50b went into space shuttle launches. This means that Space Shuttles alone account for 1/3 of ISS construction cost and they're very expensive by a standards of today ($18k/kg vs $10k/kg in Ariane V vs $4k/kg in Falcon)
  
• In FY2012 NASA budget for ISS was $2.7b, and NASA did not send ANY new modules to the ISS in that year (First US module was attached in 1998, so you might try to do some extremely rough estimations of how much did the ISS operation cost in 14 years without the expense on a new modules and launchers)
  
• Modules themselves.... good comparison for your commercial station would be ESA Columbus module - it's nearly fully autonomous and comes with heavy shielding due to it's position in ISS high debris risk zone - total cost for Columbus was $2b USD. BUT that includes all of the scientific equipment, external payload modules (including instruments mount on it), and all of the ground infrastructure necessary to support it.
  

So as you see - the cost of space station alone, without doing any science on it, is relatively tiny.

Bulk of operational expense goes to the launches - and that cost was significantly reduced in last few years thanks to the new launch systems - and a scientific research (cost of equipment, bringing it up to the station, bringing the results back down, some of it needs to be held in specific conditions cause otherwise it might break, so vibrations during launch of it need to be minimized, pressure needs to be controlled, etc. - all of it adds to the cost, and then there's a large cost associated with ground support for these experiments... again: NASA budget for 2012 should be a good indication).

[cpast]

Who is going to pay for a non-science station? The Americans and the Soviets considered military uses, but they decided unmanned satellites were more effective for those. Governments will pay for scientific stations. What commercial demand is there for one that doesn't boil down to commercial research?

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'd like a bigger and better replacement to be put up with more nations collaborating.

Maybe in addition to science it could function as an orbital assembly station as the Russian OPSEK is planned to do.

[Kevon87]

Boost it to a higher, uncluttered orbit where it's in no danger of re-entering or obstructing anything (after its stripped down of course), and turn it into the first orbital museum exhibit .

[deadshot462]

No matter what is done, the HDEV cameras need to broadcast the deorbit. THAT would be awesome/sad to see.

This and one of the interior cameras should be left on to film everything inside the station.

[Alshain]

Lets be realists, they are going to do what's cheapest.

[sp1989]

All I know is I will be sad the day they officially seal the airlocks on the ISS forever. I hope we can build something equally if not more impressive then the ISS. To answer the question of the thread. I think the answer is pretty simple, salvage what ever modules we can and then build from there. Unfortunately you will have to de oribt the rest. It will be an impressive sight.

[R0cketC0der]

No matter what is done, the HDEV cameras need to broadcast the deorbit. THAT would be awesome/sad to see.

That won't be possible. While reentering, a hot plasma gets created around the spacecraft, which makes any form of communication impossible.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

That won't be possible. While reentering, a hot plasma gets created around the spacecraft, which makes any form of communication impossible.

I suppose it could be possible to make the cameras relay their data to memory cards with their own heat shields, floats, and GPS trackers...

[Duxwing]

Lets be realists, they are going to do what's cheapest.

You're not being a realist but a pessimist: not building the ISS would have been cheaper than building it.

-Duxwing

[The Jedi Master]

Personally, I think they'll push it back a bit, since there is currently no way to replace it.

[NASAFanboy]

Nah, there's more than one private company seeking a moon landing - we're talking here about the US and by this: NASA.

I know quite well about what the commercial sector is doing, but on a level of governments - NASA with each year is being pulled back and back while competitors like China (Chang'e program) and Russia (Luna-Glob) step in (actually: even Japan got some rough idea about that, though considering their budget and materials released I find it highly unlikely to come into fruition*).

Currently, NASA has satellites in lunar orbit and is planned to launch small plants to the Moon next year. NASA also has funding to conduct a ISRU demostration mission on the Moon in 2018, so if anything, NASA may or may not be returning to the lunar business. Also, the only companies I take seriously are the ones who get a nod or a design review from NASA or a major aerospace firm with large names on their executive rosters. Golden Spike has all three, so they may have a legitimate chance. Time will tell.

Me either. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they'd go bankrupt before landing any human on a moon.

Since the Chang'e landing, there has been a spike in NASA funding, mostly due to the criticisms that Congress is letting the United States be surpassed by China without a fight. Although, to sensible people on the KSP forums, this may seem like political manuveurs, you must remember that in past history, the United States was always more keen to react to a threat rather than a opportunity. We tossed away the opportunity literally leave behind China and Russia by taking the initiative to go to Mars and build a base on the moon for 1970-2010, but now since the government has something they percieve as a threat (Chinese rise to power in the Pacific), you can be certain that they won't be cutting slack on NASA.

[Dkmdlb]

I suppose it could be possible to make the cameras relay their data to memory cards with their own heat shields, floats, and GPS trackers...

Or perhaps the memory cards could have some transmitters behind a shield which would transmit the video as the debris was falling through the lower atmosphere.

*EDIT* It looks like ESA will use this method to film the reentry of an upcoming resupply mission.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86327-ESA-will-film-deadly-reentry-from-inside-of-a-space-craft

Edited July 17, 2014 by Dkmdlb

[Kryten]

That won't be possible. While reentering, a hot plasma gets created around the spacecraft, which makes any form of communication impossible.

Only around the bottom of the spacecraft. This does makes communication with the ground impossible, but data can be relayed out via satellite.

[KASASpace]

Slap a thruster and send it out on a 5-year mission. But before that, re-christen it the Enterprise.

Seriously, though, I would say disassemble and then see what you can do with the parts. Maybe utilizing space fabrication facilities (I know, a lot of stuff) we could break the modules into smaller and smaller components and then build something new. Basically salvage it. I mean, it's billions of dollars of resources, just sitting there. Why not try to recover some of it?

BTW,

the reason for in-space fabrication is that it's easier to send something already in space to somewhere else in space near it than to de-orbit it. (de-orbiting to re-use doesn't make much sense.)

[mythic_fci]

1. Once the Dragon v2 and the Dream Chaser are up and running, send up some tools to remove all non-essential systems (aka Strip the station to it's bone)

2. Fuel the Zarya module and deorbit ISS

3. Use the remaining water supplies on board to clear up radio transmissions and send videos of the deorbit

[Seret]

it's billions of dollars of resources

Is it though? It was worth billions new, but I imagine the depreciation on a space station is pretty eye-watering. Especially when there's a very limited number of people who would buy one off you.

Things aren't worth what the original buyer paid for them, they're worth what somebody would give you for them today.

[Motokid600]

1. Once the Dragon v2 and the Dream Chaser are up and running, send up some tools to remove all non-essential systems (aka Strip the station to it's bone)

2. Fuel the Zarya module and deorbit ISS

3. Use the remaining water supplies on board to clear up radio transmissions and send videos of the deorbit

/thread. 10char