And that's really something we should focus on, if we want to beat the Chinese back to the Moon.
Ok Warren, start a new thread on the ISS section about this killing of the ISS, where your comments can be debunked, explained, answered etc. This thread is specific to the letter from the Senators and accessing a working ISS.
Most recently on this thread there has been a lot of discussion about the true scientific capabilities of the ISS, or lack thereof. But let's face it--we all can agree that it's not the lab that it could be. If we lose use of it, it's not the end of the world, by any means.The US is already in the humiliating position of having to rely on the Russians for transport to the ISS. But it would be really humiliating if the Russians say they have had enough and just refuse passage for our astronauts. And what could we really do about it in such a situation? (Nothing.) (B) And this is the beauty part: boycotting the ISS now in 2008, rather than the scheduled defunding in 2016, will free up perhaps $20-30 billion USD over the next eight years. This money could be used to speed up the Ares/Orion program and construct a new space space that would be better and cost a tiny fraction of the ISS.I'm no engineer, of course. But there's no way such a single module station would cost anywhere near the present cost of $120 billion USD and counting of the ISS, nor even the $20-30 billion we're scheduled to spend on the ISS before its defunding in 2016. What about our investment in the ISS? Wouldn't it be a waste to quit now?
Quote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 06:18 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/29/2008 05:56 pmQuote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 05:38 pm1. The Europeans are our NATO allies, and Japan is also a military ally of the US. They will understand. If not, let them man-rate the Arian.1. no they won't. We will have wasted 2 billion dollars of each of their moneySo instead we spend $20-$30 billion more so they don't lose their 2 billion each. . . . What a deal! Wrong, bad deal. The remaining costs for the ISS are not 20-30 billion more.The whole idea is just asinine.
Quote from: Jim on 08/29/2008 05:56 pmQuote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 05:38 pm1. The Europeans are our NATO allies, and Japan is also a military ally of the US. They will understand. If not, let them man-rate the Arian.1. no they won't. We will have wasted 2 billion dollars of each of their moneySo instead we spend $20-$30 billion more so they don't lose their 2 billion each. . . . What a deal!
Quote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 05:38 pm1. The Europeans are our NATO allies, and Japan is also a military ally of the US. They will understand. If not, let them man-rate the Arian.1. no they won't. We will have wasted 2 billion dollars of each of their money
1. The Europeans are our NATO allies, and Japan is also a military ally of the US. They will understand. If not, let them man-rate the Arian.
I would like to say that there is a third option to the foreignly entangled ISS. Rather than just holding our noses and extending the INKSNA waiver, or extending the shuttle, as the McCain letter suggests, we can instead view the recent Georgia troubles as an opportunity to bail out on the ISS right now--and with a clear conscience.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 05:12 pmI would like to say that there is a third option to the foreignly entangled ISS. Rather than just holding our noses and extending the INKSNA waiver, or extending the shuttle, as the McCain letter suggests, we can instead view the recent Georgia troubles as an opportunity to bail out on the ISS right now--and with a clear conscience.The anti-space-flight guys would love it. They would cut NASA's budget and spend the money on education programs. The press would love it too: "NASA dumping multi-BILLION space station". Negative publicity doesnt help NASA to get (more) money. More people would lose their jobs.
{snip}It is my claim that using Bigelow's TransHab technology, we could build a brand new, bigger, better, faster, safer, stronger, lighter, cheaper space station for no more than the cost of Skylab--and still have $40 billion to turn over to Ares/Orion to gap ASAP and get those Ares V's flying!
The ISS is not only the best scientific research facility we have in space, it's also the only one likely to be launched in the next 20 years. If it's not the lab it could be, I'm not sure what else could be. It is the culmination of many years of work by many people and certainly would be insane to pull out now, just when the station is approaching full operational status.
Concerning Russian refusal of passage for US astronauts, remember that the agreement is commercial, ie we pay you the money if you fly our astronauts. No fly, no money. A lot has been made of political issues, but remember that even during the darkest days of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and USA still conducted trade on a regular basis. No-one, certainly not RSC Energiya a profit-making organisation, is going to cut off their source of funding in order to make a political point.
Speeding up the Ares/Orion by shutting off ISS - this has been discussed before in other threads. Look at the Apollo to shuttle gap - did shutting off Apollo in 1972 bring shuttles closer? Programs tend to slip on their own, there will not be any benefit at all. The cost is that all the staff used for ISS and shuttle program will be lost and they can never be replaced except by new, inexperienced guys who need to be trained again.
Thanks for asking how I got my figures. I was thinking roughly $2-4 billion USD every year for the next 8 years or so. Which isn't very "precise". So I went back anyway to doublecheck. This NASA Main-Budget chart NASA Main-Budget chart was produced by NASA itself (I think it's in 2005 dollars), a2009 $12 billion USD2010 $12 2011 $72012 $62013 $52014 $52015 $42016 $4Thus the total that would be freed up is $55 billion USD.
but it would send a message to Russia
Quote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 11:09 pm{snip}It is my claim that using Bigelow's TransHab technology, we could build a brand new, bigger, better, faster, safer, stronger, lighter, cheaper space station for no more than the cost of Skylab--and still have $40 billion to turn over to Ares/Orion to gap ASAP and get those Ares V's flying! I am far from convinced that bureaucracies can move that fast. To build a new space station allow 1-2 years for discussion within NASA, say 3 years for approval from Congress, a couple of years to design it and a maximum (forced) of two years to launch it. You are now out to approximately 2017, which is about the normal life of the ISS.So this new space station could be the US lead replacement for the ISS. This avoids the problems of upsetting the Europeans and provides job security.
im pretty sure if the US pull out, they wont get to mars, there is no way any single country can get to mars on its own, but, if NASA does pull out, i can easily see the ESA, jaxa teaming up with the russians, and they then inviting the chinese into the ISS program, if they started handing over control bit by bit, it could work
Quote from: Warren Platts on 08/29/2008 11:09 pm2009 $12 billion USD2010 $12 2011 $72012 $62013 $52014 $52015 $42016 $4Thus the total that would be freed up is $55 billion USD.Uh, I think you're reading that chart wrong, Warren. It is a weird chart (I hate charts like this!), but the bottom (tan) area is not part of the Shuttle/Station budget. The Shuttle's budget starts at the $5 billion level.
2009 $12 billion USD2010 $12 2011 $72012 $62013 $52014 $52015 $42016 $4Thus the total that would be freed up is $55 billion USD.