Author Topic: Extending the Operational Life of the International Space Station Until 2024  (Read 18307 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2783
  • Likes Given: 1097
Recent and worth a read which covers technical and non-technical challenges: Extending the Operational Life of the International Space Station Until 2024, NASA OIG, 18-Sep-2014.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
The report says that cost for the ISS program are expected to go up to $4 billion a year by 2020. But if the Russians pull out in 2020 annual  ISS cost are expected to go even higher. It also looks like the ISS solar panels are going to have to be replaced.

There's really no reason to extend the ISS beyond 2020, IMO. Those $4 billion in annual  ISS funds in the 2020's should instead be utilized for NASA's beyond LEO program with a focus on deploying an outpost  at Earth-Moon L1 and at one of the lunar poles.

Marcel

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
There's really no reason to extend the ISS beyond 2020, IMO. Those $4 billion in annual  ISS funds in the 2020's should instead be utilized for NASA's beyond LEO program with a focus on deploying an outpost  at Earth-Moon L1 and at one of the lunar poles.

Marcel

There's even less reasons to deploy an outpost  at Earth-Moon L1 and at one of the lunar poles.



Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
By 2024 it probably would be cheaper to replace ISS with a new station vs trying to repair and update the old one on orbit due to RLVs and HLVs being available.

Put a few BA2100s or Skylab 2s on SLS or BFR and you can have a new even larger station for a few billion.
Heck even Skylon may be operational by then.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2014 05:36 am by Patchouli »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
The report says that cost for the ISS program are expected to go up to $4 billion a year by 2020. But if the Russians pull out in 2020 annual  ISS cost are expected to go even higher. It also looks like the ISS solar panels are going to have to be replaced.

There's really no reason to extend the ISS beyond 2020, IMO. Those $4 billion in annual  ISS funds in the 2020's should instead be utilized for NASA's beyond LEO program with a focus on deploying an outpost  at Earth-Moon L1 and at one of the lunar poles.

Marcel
LEO is cheaper than BLEO. The ISS took decades to go from conception to completion, we may as well use it. A lot of important research can be done there.

The plans for BLEO are aimless and the money would most likely just be wasted.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2014 06:35 am by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 128
Just read a news which says that Roscosmos is planning to allocate 321 billion rubles (about 10B USD) over 2016-2025 period for ISS (this amount includes operational costs as well as building new modules). This program has not yet been approved by the government.
Link (in Russian): http://lenta.ru/news/2014/09/23/iss/

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
By 2024 it probably would be cheaper to replace ISS with a new station vs trying to repair and update the old one on orbit due to RLVs and HLVs being available.

Put a few BA2100s or Skylab 2s on SLS or BFR and you can have a new even larger station for a few billion.
Heck even Skylon may be operational by then.
To have to replace it with something, there needs to be an actual requirement. The big question is what will be the requirements by 2024 forward. If so, there are 10 years to develop a solution (and the station can be extended to 2028, to add some margin). So, talking about what is necessary after 2024, you need to state what will the requirements be.

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 40
If the solar panels are replaced, a few questions...


(1) Would the replacement be more efficient than the old ones, since technology has progressed in the intermediate time frame of the original design? Or would they just slap together a clone of the original ones to save on the cost of engineering a new design? (If the efficiency gain of a new design is significant, then is it worth the added cost of re-engineering?)


(2) How would it be delivered? What launch vehicles are qualified? Is their a benefit in using SLS over traditional launch system? Would the form factor have to change in order to be compatible with the launch vehicle? Could all four panels be delivered via a single launch? If not, how many launches would it require?


(3) Would it make more sense to launch a new "core" module, pre-equipped with all the essentials (solar panels, etc.) and vital redundancy to keep the U.S. section of ISS kicking beyond 2024 via a solitary launch on SLS?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
If the solar panels are replaced, a few questions...


(1) Would the replacement be more efficient than the old ones, since technology has progressed in the intermediate time frame of the original design? Or would they just slap together a clone of the original ones to save on the cost of engineering a new design? (If the efficiency gain of a new design is significant, then is it worth the added cost of re-engineering?)


(2)
a. How would it be delivered?
b. What launch vehicles are qualified?
c. Is their a benefit in using SLS over traditional launch system?
d.  Would the form factor have to change in order to be compatible with the launch vehicle?
e.  Could all four panels be delivered via a single launch? If not, how many launches would it require?


(3) Would it make more sense to launch a new "core" module, pre-equipped with all the essentials (solar panels, etc.) and vital redundancy to keep the U.S. section of ISS kicking beyond 2024 via a solitary launch on SLS?

1.  That would depend on the contract for the new panels.

2.
a. That would be part of the design constraints for the contract.
b.  Launch vehicles are not certified, cargo delivery systems are.  They are Dragon, Cygnus, Progress and HTV.
c.  No.  It won't be ready for awhile.  It doesn't have a delivery vehicle. 
d.  See #1.
e.  see #1

3.  no.  No money for it, no place for it on the ISS, and no use for it on the ISS (what vital redundancy?)

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
LEO is cheaper than BLEO. The ISS took decades to go from conception to completion, we may as well use it. A lot of important research can be done there.

Like what for example?
How do you measure the "importance" of a research?
How can you compare it to the importance of alternative researches eventually paid with the same bucks?

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
By 2024 it probably would be cheaper to replace ISS with a new station vs trying to repair and update the old one on orbit due to RLVs and HLVs being available.

Put a few BA2100s or Skylab 2s on SLS or BFR and you can have a new even larger station for a few billion.
Heck even Skylon may be operational by then.

No, I think this is completely wrong.  What's worse, this type of thinking avoids making simple, obvious improvements in favor of waiting for the "home run" to be hit that will fix everything.  But when starting from scratch, the scale of what was done for ISS will become more and more evident, and the costs will balloon, and you will see over and over again things like X-33:  reach exceeds grasp, billions wasted, start over, repeat, repeat, repeat. 

Could future rockets put up a big module?  Yes, and that's fantastic.  Add it to ISS.  I find it extremely hard to believe that so much money will be washing around in the future that designers will be eager to start from scratch on redundant power systems, ECLSS, docking systems, failsafe evacuation and pressure vessel maintenance, modular equipment racks, airflow and electrical connections between modules, and so on.  It's so much easier to be extremely innovative on a few points, while taking advantage of existing power, or existing cooling systems, etc.

Want to upgrade ISS solar panels?  Pick a wing, replace it.  Or add an additional redundant circuit.  The new higher efficiency panels would reduce the wear on the SARJs, could potentially be designed to reduce solar beta angle limitations, and would generally provide much greater clearance.  Presumably you would design them to use the same power conversion systems.

Similarly with each of the major subsystems:  bring the new alternative online alongside the existing, test it with the luxury of having a fallback, and then if the old is no longer desired, yank it out or dump that piece. 

I would accept the idea of replacing it with a HLV module ONLY AFTER launches of the HLV have become commonplace and routine, and multiple other modules equivalent to a station-sized one (say, BA2100s) have been built, launched, and used.  And it is clear there is plenty of money available for an ISS-sized development and construction project.  Otherwise, what you are asking is as idiotic as ULA shutting down Atlas V and Delta IV assembly right now, in favor of their new LNG rocket to be developed and built a few years hence.  It's almost certain they will try to operate the new alongside the old for at least a year or two while confidence builds and the kinks get worked out.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
My main question would be; Can the modules of the ISS last longer?  Each module was designed with a certain life expectancy, and once past that, can we honestly expect the modules to continue to function and hold pressure as they do now.  Seals do wear out and require replacing, which I don't think any real provision has been made to do so onsite.

On the other hand, should we wish to replace said modules, it may not be possible as some modules may have "vacume welded" to one another.  If so, it would be very difficult, to perhaps impossible, to replace entire modules.

If the ISS is used beyond 2024, then alternnatives to conventional space walks need to be explored.  Robonaut 2 is an option, but a self propelled space pod, would likely be a far superior option, as the astronaut could work in ISS pressure, using smaller remote manipulator arms to utilize tools.  If a suit is still needed, the Astronaut can wear his in the pod while working and breathing pure O2 to get ready for an outside excursion.  The pod could be remote controlled from the station while working with the space walking astronaut.

But the real core of this discussion is; how much more of a working lifespan do the ISS modules and systems have, and would it be more economical to deorbit the ISS and build a new station or keep replacing parts and modules piece by piece?
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
There is a team working specifically on certifying the ISS structural life at least out to 2028.

Development work on a new station would be mind-bogglingly expensive.  Design work on much of ISS began in the 1980s.  Some of the solar array hardware was built as early as 1991.  If work is started now, in earnest, it might be possible to launch the first elements of a new station in 2028, provided none of the next seven congresses cancel the program.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
LEO is cheaper than BLEO. The ISS took decades to go from conception to completion, we may as well use it. A lot of important research can be done there.

Like what for example?
How do you measure the "importance" of a research?
How can you compare it to the importance of alternative researches eventually paid with the same bucks?



A lot of the biological science basis for BLEO travel has to start there.  Building mouse models for bone density loss, shifts in eye shape and mitigation methods, and radiation tolerance and damage prevention or repair.  Looking for changes in gene regulation, then investigating to see what proteins are involved, and then investigating to see what those proteins do.  Most of that will also yield important insights into terrestrial diseases and disorders, and provide new insight into general biological systems.  Most of the research to date has been done after the fact, and on humans.  That's nice, but you can't for example test bone slices or take slices of brain tissue or knock out certain genes and see what happens on people, ethically.  Nor could you see how a live birth is handled in space on people, ethically, or measure generational changes. 

I know, most of the people who frequent this forum would prefer to test the depth of the pool Jackass-style, by leaping off the top of a nearby roof, when it comes to space radiation or other risks.  Certainly the risks will never go to zero.  But responsibly, we can and should do our homework before sending people out on multi-year journeys.

ECLSS systems are being tested at ISS. 

Even right now, the ISS has proven a wonderful way to test how structures age in space.  The struggles of removing bolts, deploying solar arrays that had been stowed for a while, building gloves that can handle micrometeoroid-pitted surfaces, mitigating charge buildup on large structures, and designing tasks for people suffering with real-world spacesuit limitations--those are all valuable insights.  You will wish you had worked out some of those issues, if you push ahead on BLEO activities before sorting things out.  In all things space, what you don't know can kill you, and probably will.

Engineering-wise, there's a lot that can be done going forward.  Testing 3D printing of structures.  Perhaps coupled with space-based composite construction (I'm thinking carbon fiber tubes and beams), to build large-scale structures.  Working on the metrology to build accurately.  Done on ISS, because human interaction is still much cheaper and more effective than trying to pre-solve every problem that could arise.  Speaking of that, there is so much research that needs to be done with extending automation in manned space structures--when something goes wrong, there's still an EVA, a human EVA, planned.  Where's Robonaut 2?  And how can we chop the number of people needed constantly watching screens on earth for problems?  That won't be so effective when the data on their screens is 20 minutes behind. 

Still, one valuable lesson taught by ISS is that many hours of EVA can be done, with reasonable risk.  I remember Congressmen hectoring a NASA rep about how many hours of EVA would be required, and how that was suggested as a reason the whole thing was unworkable. 


Measuring the importance of a particular line of research is very hard, perhaps impossible until a few decades after the fact.  Comparing it to another line of research is even worse.  How could you compare, say, the Wright Brothers' research on aviation vs. Fleming's research on penicillin without flinging the bullest of crap? 

The standard answer would probably be to compare scholarly articles, published in peer-reviewed journals above a certain impact factor cutoff to eliminate the "we'll accept whatever you submit for a fee" bottom-feeders. 
But recall that Mendel's work on genetics sat unused and unappreciated for three and a half decades until the rest of the world caught up.  Tsiolkovsky's work was similarly poorly appreciated for several decades.  Zero impact factor for decades, then whole areas of science and technology built on top of it.

The problem for something like ISS is that before the research could really crank up, the research facility had to be developed from scratch, and the researchers could only access it remotely, and getting access was extremely hard and pricey.  Hopefully the cargo runs will continue to improve in timeliness and regularity.

For that matter, commercial crew and commercial cargo could be touted as "research" benefits of the ISS.  They are trials on the operational/managerial/financial side, rather than in science or engineering, but still crucially important for the future of the space industry in the US.   

But the key thing is the ISS research is building momentum, whereas other hypothetical research in space is still on the drawing board. 

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
There is a team working specifically on certifying the ISS structural life at least out to 2028.

Development work on a new station would be mind-bogglingly expensive.  Design work on much of ISS began in the 1980s.  Some of the solar array hardware was built as early as 1991.  If work is started now, in earnest, it might be possible to launch the first elements of a new station in 2028, provided none of the next seven congresses cancel the program.

I imagine some of the biggest challenges would be the structural interfaces between the nodes, and the compression set of the elastomeric compounds of the interface seals.

Of course there is also the structural issues of the SAWs, but if they are replaced, that solves that issue. Then the a big challenge is having them furled up again (and that might be a nightmare!).

I can't foresee a new LEO station in my lifetime. Once ISS is gone, there will likely be short stints in Bigelow modules and other types of commercial platforms, but a more concerted effort (if the finds are there) for BEO exploration. But I digress...

This (to me) seems like a good engineering challenge.

Offline AntiAnti

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Moscow
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
According to draft of Russian Space Funding Program until 2025, Roscosmos wants to extend life of the station up to 2024 only.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
There is a team working specifically on certifying the ISS structural life at least out to 2028.

Development work on a new station would be mind-bogglingly expensive.  Design work on much of ISS began in the 1980s.  Some of the solar array hardware was built as early as 1991.  If work is started now, in earnest, it might be possible to launch the first elements of a new station in 2028, provided none of the next seven congresses cancel the program.

Skylab would be a better analogy than ISS. There shouldn't be "first elements" which will just add complexity, cost, time and weight. Get as much capability into 100,000-130,000 kg and launch it in one go on SLS or whatever SpaceX might be building and then call it a day. This will be about 1/3 the mass of ISS, but we need to shrink a "space station" to enable long duration and large delta-v human spaceflight. Honestly, any replacement for ISS should simply be something like a 500-day Orion-Service Module-Hab module-Lab module stack with the ability to refuel and re-supply through CRS. In fact, with long duration SEP, you could maintain orbit and orientation for long enough on a single tank that you don't need to refuel. Putting it in a higher orbit would reduce re-boost. This approach fully leverages the BEO stuff that is redundant and has already been under development for years moving your 2028 date up significantly because the "start" was quite a while ago. If we are taking the international route for a follow-on, JAXA would provide the lab, CSA the arm, ESA the service module and NASA the Hab, Orion and launch vehicle.

Targeted launch data of EM-2(2021).

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
There is a team working specifically on certifying the ISS structural life at least out to 2028.

Development work on a new station would be mind-bogglingly expensive.  Design work on much of ISS began in the 1980s.  Some of the solar array hardware was built as early as 1991.  If work is started now, in earnest, it might be possible to launch the first elements of a new station in 2028, provided none of the next seven congresses cancel the program.

Skylab would be a better analogy than ISS. There shouldn't be "first elements" which will just add complexity, cost, time and weight. Get as much capability into 100,000-130,000 kg and launch it in one go on SLS or whatever SpaceX might be building and then call it a day. This will be about 1/3 the mass of ISS, but we need to shrink a "space station" to enable long duration and large delta-v human spaceflight. Honestly, any replacement for ISS should simply be something like a 500-day Orion-Service Module-Hab module-Lab module stack with the ability to refuel and re-supply through CRS. In fact, with long duration SEP, you could maintain orbit and orientation for long enough on a single tank that you don't need to refuel. Putting it in a higher orbit would reduce re-boost. This approach fully leverages the BEO stuff that is redundant and has already been under development for years moving your 2028 date up significantly because the "start" was quite a while ago. If we are taking the international route for a follow-on, JAXA would provide the lab, CSA the arm, ESA the service module and NASA the Hab, Orion and launch vehicle.

Targeted launch data of EM-2(2021).

If you are trying to understand long-term effects of space environments on living creatures, switching to a short-term station makes no sense.  If you are planning for future exploration to be more than boots and flags, eliminating multiple-module designs for all-in-ones is really going to cripple your design space.  Most importantly, what you describe isn't useful for science, it's just a thinly disguised test flight for your exploration vehicle.  Call it what it is, and fly it as such, but it doesn't replace the need for ISS.

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
All the further science doable on the ISS listed so far looks to me marginal, or already completed, or doable in other ways at a fraction of the cost.

I know my point of view is particularly unpopular here (but is popular among a lot of scientists and engineers) but I still invite you to open your mind and see that the ISS is blocking any further step toward space by absorbing most of the available budget.

The ISS has done what it could - great job for sure - and I really hope this sort of tunnelled vision will not affect too this "team working specifically on certifying the ISS structural life at least until 2024.".

BTW, shouldn't be this "working on checking IF the ISS can be certified until 2024"? The way it is looks like they already reached this conclusion and are just searching for ways to proof it. Something extremely dangerous because an accident could convince even more people that HSF is a dangerous funny game and bring to even more budget funding cuts. No, don't look at me: I'm NOT thinking this, just saying OTHERS do. And hope Feynman statement on bending the law of physics (and statistics) will not be applicable here.

People here keep saying that this is all you can get. I think they are right as long so many people passionate about science and technology keep thinking this way.

The ISS is a big cork on the BLEO bottle. As it has not been - unfortunately - designed since the beginning as an incremental, scalable system I hope that it will be shut down by the end of its current operating life and that rather than spending time and resources in finding way to extend its life we look at the future. It served a lot of fundamental political and technological tasks, and I really enjoy it - no doubts - but it's not an historical monument and should not be treated like that.

This is an opinion you may not share, but it's an opinion, expressed in polite even if determined words and shared by much more people than some of you may think. So, please respect it and myself exactly like I respect yours and you not making jokes of it.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2014 10:05 am by pagheca »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
...
The ISS is a big cork on the BLEO bottle. As it has not been - unfortunately - designed since the beginning as an incremental, scalable system I hope that it will be shut down by the end of its current operating life and that rather than spending time and resources in finding way to extend its life we look at the future. It served a lot of fundamental political and technological tasks, and I really enjoy it - no doubts - but it's not an historical monument and should not be treated like that.

...

While that may be considered so, I would point to the countless hardware issues on station.
1) Some had design flaws from the outset that have helped the engineers on the ground work on redesigns (ECLSS, spacesuits).
2) Some critical hardware experienced and continue to experience faults over the long term that have helped understand, and continue to develop these systems.
3) It has provided valuable insight on repair techniques on-orbit & in low gravity; not just inside, but out on structure.
4) Something simple like understanding breaking bolt torque, or mating electrical or fluid connectors, could be critical in BEO repairs.
5) With respect to political tasks, if one looks at the state of world relation with Russia, it is one that has provided some glue to keep the parties talking, if for nothing else to not abandon a continued presence in space.
6) BEO targets will be spread out over many years, dominated by those with the most cash (China) and we will then have all this 'crying' that we had this capability to facilitate space travel, and then let it go, losing (perceived) dominance.
7) Those same 'scientists' include students who have been included to show the value of science across a variety of disciplines and sources, not just a few engineering offices. Universities, colleges, and grade schools have been a part of the ISS for some years now, and I have no doubt it has shaped a great deal of them in their fields.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
...
The ISS is a big cork on the BLEO bottle. As it has not been - unfortunately - designed since the beginning as an incremental, scalable system I hope that it will be shut down by the end of its current operating life and that rather than spending time and resources in finding way to extend its life we look at the future. It served a lot of fundamental political and technological tasks, and I really enjoy it - no doubts - but it's not an historical monument and should not be treated like that.

...

While that may be considered so, I would point to the countless hardware issues on station.
1) Some had design flaws from the outset that have helped the engineers on the ground work on redesigns (ECLSS, spacesuits).
2) Some critical hardware experienced and continue to experience faults over the long term that have helped understand, and continue to develop these systems.
3) It has provided valuable insight on repair techniques on-orbit & in low gravity; not just inside, but out on structure.
4) Something simple like understanding breaking bolt torque, or mating electrical or fluid connectors, could be critical in BEO repairs.
5) With respect to political tasks, if one looks at the state of world relation with Russia, it is one that has provided some glue to keep the parties talking, if for nothing else to not abandon a continued presence in space.
6) BEO targets will be spread out over many years, dominated by those with the most cash (China) and we will then have all this 'crying' that we had this capability to facilitate space travel, and then let it go, losing (perceived) dominance.
7) Those same 'scientists' include students who have been included to show the value of science across a variety of disciplines and sources, not just a few engineering offices. Universities, colleges, and grade schools have been a part of the ISS for some years now, and I have no doubt it has shaped a great deal of them in their fields.

Given the problems and what was learned, when do you transition to a next gen lighter, more manueverable system with common engineering and design with long duration BEO systems?

Just look at the advances in power supply since ISS. ISS currently uses nickel batteries and 14% efficiency solar cells. They are upgrading to lithium in 2016 but it seems to me you can shrink mass of the vehicle signicantly without hurting capabiities too much. Then you look at propulsion, ECLSS, computing, communication, structures(inflatable?) and similar advances have been made while heavy lift will allow a single module to provide similar internal pressurized volume.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
...
Given the problems and what was learned, when do you transition to a next gen lighter, more manueverable system with common engineering and design with long duration BEO systems?

Just look at the advances in power supply since ISS. ISS currently uses nickel batteries and 14% efficiency solar cells. They are upgrading to lithium in 2016 but it seems to me you can shrink mass of the vehicle signicantly without hurting capabiities too much. Then you look at propulsion, ECLSS, computing, communication, structures(inflatable?) and similar advances have been made while heavy lift will allow a single module to provide similar internal pressurized volume.

You seem to be asking for 2 separate designs, or (to me) an untenable single BEO design.

Remember that once you leave the sphere of LEO, your costs go up SIGNIFICANTLY. You also need many of the capabilities now provided for as on the ISS (that you mention): proven & redundant ECLSS, Power, structure (rad & extensive mmod hardening), coms, 'rad-hard' computing (not currently or fully utilized on ISS), propulsion. On top of that, you may need (or want) EVA capability, secondary docking/berthing capability.

1) You need to ferry supplies to that location. NASA would need to (likely) utilize a Dragon for that capability (if they are commercially available, as per mandate), or fund a next-gen BEO-CRS operation.
2) You need an emergency return capsule (let's say Orion), permanently attached with an (as yet unproven) 1-year (or whatever) loiter timeframe.
3) You need the money to do all this (operating a station), and fund the next (non-station) mission, because that's what everyone wants, and SLS needs to maintain a launch tempo.
 
I have no reservations of conducting BEO exploration AND science, but we have to understand that to accomplish both puts a serious strain on budgeting. If you decide to do a BEO mission for science, that is (typically) a long-term strategy. With that, you are now dedicating a significant chunk of NASA's budget to that effort, monies will NOT be available for a second/different/follow-on mission. I think most people can see how that math adds up. We only need to look at previous missions to know how that works out; JWST that eats up vast budget dollars, ISS development that required a scaling back of modules & capabilities, even SLS development & deployment.

But let's not turn this into a discussion on what could be offered in a BEO station (that's for another thread).
What we need to consider is what is left for the ISS to teach us. It is (or should be) well known that proper utilization of ISS was never fully realized due to these continued ISS 'extensions'. A long-term strategy & commitment years ago would have brought the players (scientists) with long-duration science goals to the table, as they could count on their science research actually flying to the station, and be providing data for the many years that are required.

I put it to you that, with extension to 2024, ISS has seen a renewed interest from scientists. The hold-backs now: Russia and it's political situation, a global economy that has seen major pullback from partner nations (including the end of ATV flights), and guaranteed access to space research with the latest vehicle loss (Orbital's Cygnus). If we go BEO (and if the USA goes it alone), you likely still face all of the above, save the first with the Russian situation.

Offline mcgyver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • milan, rome
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 142
Is there an official page listing experiments made on ISS?
Media never talk about it.
For what I know from media, ISS is just sitting there, and sometimes an astronaut takes a cool snapshot of his home...  ::)
I'm not argumenting, I just don't know what's the actual current use of ISS.
I think there are some hundreds of millions of people in my same situation: they're paying billions in taxes, which are used on ISS for...?

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Is there an official page listing experiments made on ISS?
Media never talk about it.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category.html

Of course there is a myriad of experiments done on the ISS.

The problem is to actually evaluate:
(1) their impact respect to their cost
(2) how many of them could be done in a cheaper and more efficient ways.

Not easy tasks. But there is general consensus that ISS is NOT a scientific platform. It's purpose is different, mainly political/technological, and just because it's there you can use it for some science. Something like the South Pole Station: the US needed an outpost in Antarctica in IGY 1957, mainly for political and military reasons as other countries were claiming "slices". Then, science took over, as it was discovered that the site is unique for some kind of science.

This last part doesn't apply to the ISS. We knew what was good for from a scientific point of view since the beginning, at least more or less. The issue is it's an intermediate step for proceeding behind (the Moon, Mars, whatever: unlike Antarctica, where there are only a few sites of such a scientific interest to be permanently populatd, the universe is HUGE).

But as long as we put all our effort on the ISS there are no money to proceed ahead. An HST, a Voyager or a Curiosity scientific return is extremely much larger, but at a fraction of the cost. We needed it to verify some extremely important engineering tasks? Yes, I fully agree, although we could probably do it with a much cheaper, smaller system, but however, we did it. Let's proceed ahead. Do not be afraid of the future.

That's how I see it.
 
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 10:12 am by pagheca »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2612375

Now some sources say only until 2020, new station after.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

....and people in Roscosmos immediately denies this report, saying that flying such a station by 2017-2019 is infeasible technically and financially...  :-X

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/news/25767/
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Disclaimer: These are my opinions.

I see two threads in this discussion, is money being used efficiently and does ISS help or hurt BEO. And you will find strong and valuable points on both sides. Money is being spent well on ISS. No better spent elsewhere. ISS has valuable lessons for BEO. No spend the money elsewhere.

For me, No Bucks, No Buck Rogers. There should be money for both and the community should fight for a bigger pie instead of a big piece of a small pie.

Since that will not happen. There will be no ISS II, nor BEO station, nor a Lunar Base, nor a Skylab II, nor a Mars landing, ect, ect ect.

Someone pointed out that the process is to over reach, spend billions, kill program, repeat, repeat, repeat. Even programs that don't get killed like the ISS are planned, replanned, replanned, replanned, replanned... It would not surprise me if there could be a good accounting of ISS, it would see 1/3 of it's costs went into replanning.

So I get excited about Space X and Bigelow and even Boeing and Bigelow. There is pent up demand to do these things. There is money available for these things if Return On Investment can be justified (longer ROI on pure research, much sooner ROI if attemptin LEO producing a product).

And Elon is basing going to Mars on just that. Making money and funding a trip he sees as never being done by governments.

He's correct.

The future is no ISS II in LEO; no government stations anywhere. There will be coporate and university logos on specialized stations everywhere.

(My apologies to those programs that succeed on time and on budget. Thank you. Wish we had more budget so you could do it again.)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
A Boeing press release:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-04-23-Boeing-Names-John-Shannon-Space-Launch-System-Vice-President
ST. LOUIS, April 23, 2015 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] has named John Shannon to be vice president and program manager for the Space Launch System (SLS), which will provide NASA with heavy-lift capability to send people and cargo into deep space. [...] He currently serves as the company’s International Space Station (ISS) program manager.

Is there an implication here that the ISS extension studies and plans (Shannon must have been central to those in his former position) are now fairly solid?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21710
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8562
  • Likes Given: 320
December 22, 2015 (JST)

Comments by JAXA President on Japan's Decision to Participate in Extended ISS Operations

On December 22, 2015, the Japanese and U.S. governments agreed on a new cooperation framework for the International Space Station (ISS) Program and, accordingly, Japan decided to extend its participation in the ISS operations until 2024. Through operations
and utilizations of the Japanese Experiment Module "Kibo" and the cargo transporter to the ISS "KOUNOTORI", JAXA will responsibly produce commensurate achievements from the extended operations.

The Japan-U.S. Open Platform Partnership Program (Japan-U.S. OP3) newly agreed today will step-up the relationship between both countries to the next phase. In order to realize Japan's space policy, JAXA will produce desirable outcomes by promoting
unprecedented utilization of the Kibo and the KOUNOTORI effectively and efficiently leveraging the new framework.

Continuous support and cooperation with the ISS Program from Japanese people and ISS partner countries will be very much appreciated.

Thank you very much.

December 22, 2015
Naoki Okumura
President
National Research and Development Agency
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)

URL:
http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2015/12/20151222_iss.html
Jacques :-)

Online jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21710
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8562
  • Likes Given: 320
December 22, 2015
RELEASE 15-237

NASA Administrator Statement on Japan Announcement of Support for International Space Station Through 2024

In January 2014, the Obama Administration announced the United States was committed to extending operations of the International Space Station (ISS) through at least 2024. The commitment represents the second time in seven years the administration has led the partnership in extending the life of the ISS.

Since then, Russia and Canada have made similar commitments, and ESA (European Space Agency) is moving the station extension proposal through its ministerial-level approval process. On Dec. 22, Japan joined in reaffirming its support for the space station through at least 2024. The following is a statement on Japan’s support from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden:

“We are delighted Japan has agreed to extend our long and fruitful collaboration aboard the International Space Station through at least 2024.

“The station’s success is due to the ingenuity and cooperation of many nations, and it is our first stop on the journey to Mars. Japan’s Kibo laboratory, launches of cargo, outstanding crew members and innovative approach to the future of human spaceflight have contributed greatly to the station’s success.

“We look forward to our continued work together to generate even greater benefits for humanity aboard this unprecedented, world-class facility.” 

For more information about the space station, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/station
Jacques :-)

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
   No one has mentioned the proverbial 'elephant in the room'.
That 'elephant' being?....Unexpected events and developments, ranging from stunningly awesome news to shockingly horrifying tragedy.
I want to focus on potentially negative surprises that life can bring to ISS, ranging from super solar-flares, that trillion or billion-to-one odds against hitting ISS baseball-sized meteorite or piece of space junk, to a nuclear war on Earth.
As some say of life, s**t happens.
It can happen to ISS too.
And here's a FACT, not an OPINION: the longer ISS stays operational the more likelihood there is that one of those terrible things may happen to ISS, or something else will.
Before I go on and ramble, the question I have in mind is this: If ISS were somehow destroyed, with tragic loss of life,
before say 2024, will the nations of Earth fund and build a replacement?

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Failure or no failure, no ISS II.

Offline mtakala24

I saw it documented somewhere, that probability of a MMOD hit resulting in LOCV is 1/10 for the duration of the ISS program. That is the most severe risk that could end it early.

The upcoming battery upgrades/changeouts will make the electrical system good to go to 2024 at least. If there is will in 2019-2020 timeframe to keep continuing to 2028, I think the solar panel replacement/augmentation would need looking into.

Offline goretexguy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 30
*If* the Russians don't want to fund ISS ops past 2020, and *if* the U.S. and other ISS participants wish to keep ISS operational into the 2020s, would an invitation be extended to China to join in? If the budget gets tight, Chinese money could be a big benefit.

Do the current ISS agreements allow such a thing?
Would China be interested?
Does the U.S. have security or technology transfer concerns WRT Chinese involvement?

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
I saw it documented somewhere, that probability of a MMOD hit resulting in LOCV is 1/10 for the duration of the ISS program. That is the most severe risk that could end it early.

The upcoming battery upgrades/changeouts will make the electrical system good to go to 2024 at least. If there is will in 2019-2020 timeframe to keep continuing to 2028, I think the solar panel replacement/augmentation would need looking into.

Here are a couple of slides from October 2012 regarding ISS MMOD for LOC and/or crew evacuation risk.
(also attached as a pdf)

Offline bolun

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
  • Europe
  • Liked: 970
  • Likes Given: 110

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1