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
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
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: manboy on 09/23/2014 06:31 amLEO 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?
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.
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 11/07/2014 09:23 pmThere 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).
...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....
Quote from: pagheca on 11/09/2014 09:53 am...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.
Is there an official page listing experiments made on ISS?Media never talk about it.
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.