Author Topic: Ending involvement in ISS  (Read 37454 times)

Offline janmb

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #20 on: 08/29/2008 08:13 pm »
And that's really something we should focus on, if we want to beat the Chinese back to the Moon.

Why on EARTH would that be a goal or even a point of any kind?

You beat them with at least 40 years, probably 50+ by the time they ever get there. Isn't that enough?


It's time to realize this isn't a race anymore. Nor should it be political - even at the most minor levels. It is (or at least should be) purely a matter of science by now. Careful, planned, conscious, deliberate science.


(and yeah, this is way off topic, please move this too)
« Last Edit: 08/29/2008 08:13 pm by janmb »
Jan M Berg
Software Engineer
Kongsberg Defense and Aerospace
Norway

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #21 on: 08/29/2008 09:10 pm »
And we've split the topic..
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #22 on: 08/29/2008 09:28 pm »
Abandoning ISS is not a political option and would cripple CxP's Mars research and development such as testing VASIMR engines and closed loop life support.
Plus it would be a slap in the face to our European and Japanese partners.

A better option would be to either fly the shuttle until 2015 and replace Ares with Direct so keeping the shuttle no longer interferes so much with CxP.

Or plan B increase the COTS budget to 2 or 3 Billion and get a crash program to get Dragon and I guess a second COTS-D vehicle maybe Dreamchaser or the CXV into service ASAP.
Why at least two crewed COTS vehicles I don't think we should keep all our eggs in one basket.
Didn't we learn that lesson with the Shuttle?
« Last Edit: 08/29/2008 09:30 pm by Patchouli »

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #23 on: 08/29/2008 09:36 pm »
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.

Not to say that I agree with Warren's proposal, quite the opposite. But this website is a forum where all views are heard, not only those "experts" or commentators with an axe to grind. I applaud Warren for his post and discussion - it's exactly this sort of thing that made me sign up to the forum in the first place. Constructive criticism only please.

siatwork

  • Guest
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #24 on: 08/29/2008 09:41 pm »
In addition to research, a good reason to hold on to the ISS is that it is a specific (and not half bad one!) destination for the COTS program (or potential manned EELV developments) , or indeed our next main LEO vehicle, which may enhance our space industry. 

Having a facility, especially such as ISS, to go to is important to sustain the COTS programs, other businesses, and argue in front of decision makers. 

There is also a lot of practical insight into how to develop and maintain long-term space life-support systems, crew psychology, etc... which will certainly be useful long-term.  Perhaps there are better ways to do it, but we've got ISS and it's real.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2008 09:48 pm by siatwork »

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #25 on: 08/29/2008 09:53 pm »
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?
And here's mine:
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.

siatwork

  • Guest
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #26 on: 08/29/2008 10:00 pm »
Right, it's about money and prestige for them as well.  There is currently absolutely no indication that Russia/Roskosmos wants to deny us any access to ISS (not that we shouldn't be working pronto on our own vehicle(s)!). 

They can't anyway, we (the US) also have a lot of technical leverage in controlling the ISS.  If "push comes to shove", all will lose.

In fact, in another thread, it's been reported they've sent people to NASA to negotiate the Soyuz seat purchase right after the recent political events.  Currently the escalation and the linking of the political stand-off onto the ISS program seems to be coming from another direction...
« Last Edit: 08/29/2008 10:12 pm by siatwork »

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #27 on: 08/29/2008 11:09 pm »

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.

1.  no they won't.  We will have wasted 2 billion dollars of each of their money
So 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.
Hi Jim,

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), and shows the projected budget for the next several years. Thus, just going by the chart, rounded to the nearest billion, the following is what could be saved by defunding the ISS now, instead of in 2016:

2009 $12 billion USD
2010 $12
2011 $7
2012 $6
2013 $5
2014 $5
2015 $4
2016 $4

Thus the total that would be freed up is $55 billion USD. Well, we should probably subtract a couple of billion that it's going to take to decommission the shuttles. Moving those babies to the museums isn't going to be easy! ;D

The reason my first estimate was so off was because I didn't take into account the savings that would be realized by decommissioning the shuttle two years early.

This is not chump change, folks.

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!
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Felix

  • Expert
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Europe.GER.bw
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #28 on: 08/29/2008 11:27 pm »

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.
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. 

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #29 on: 08/29/2008 11:39 pm »

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.
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.
Sir,
The reason NASA is decommissioning the shuttle in 2010 is in order to free up money for Ares/Orion. That way new money could be channeled for Ares/Orion without actually adding to NASA's overall budget. Read the McCain letter. Sen. McCain says the same thing.

All I'm proposing is taking advantage of the present political climate to do the same with the ISS.

It would be a cynical, almost Machiavellian move, to be sure--but it would send a message to Russia and will get us to the Moon at least two years earlier than planned.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #30 on: 08/29/2008 11:59 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.

Offline quickshot89

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #31 on: 08/30/2008 12:04 am »
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

but no, if NASA pulls out of the ISS any time soon the rest of the partners will demand compensation

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #32 on: 08/30/2008 12:09 am »
Hi cd-slam,

It's been a while since I was in Singapore--I always thought that Singapore would make a great place for a spaceport.  :)

Thanks for props--I would have preferred if the thread was split into the general discussion, instead of down here at the bottom of the page (don't they want to maximize their page-views?), because this thread is just as much about the troubles in Georgia as the other thread. The ISS is going to be defunded in 2016 in any case, but this thread is not about what to do in 2016--it's about making people aware of new possibilities for action NOW! I would have been content to let the ISS continue to drift along as well, but the incursion into Georgia changes everything about the equation, IMHO.

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.
Read up about the BA 330 and take another look at my proposal for a BA1000. NASA is done with the ISS in 2016 come hell or high water. If there is going to be another station after 2016, it's going to have to be a bigger, better, faster, stronger, lighter, safer, cheaper station than the ISS. It's time to start thinking about a replacement regardless of one's feelings regarding the current political environment.

Quote from: cd-slam
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.
I agree with you that Energiya would like to make as much profit as possible. Unfortunately, Putin runs the show. He's already shown that he's willing to cutoff oil and natural gas to various places. (Witness the bombing strikes at the pipeline in Georgia.) If Putin is capable of cutting off oil and natural gas used to heat people's homes in a European winter, he's more than capable of cutting off access to the ISS.

Quote from: cd-slam
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.
This is a very good point that I don't have a good answer for. But a lot of the shuttle staff will be moving over to Ares, which, after all uses much of the same equipment. Launch pad types will be busy converting to the new system. Ground controllers will get a long vacation, but the Ares I will launch in 2011 in any case, and with the shuttle retired two years early, perhaps that date could get moved up, assuming they can get the throttle issues and such worked out.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2008 12:12 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #33 on: 08/30/2008 12:23 am »
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), a

2009 $12 billion USD
2010 $12
2011 $7
2012 $6
2013 $5
2014 $5
2015 $4
2016 $4

Thus 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.

Shuttle/Station in 2009 looks to be about $7 billion, not $12 billion, per that chart. But in the actual budget request for 2009, it is about $5 billion.

The actual numbers are listed on Page 10 of the FY09 Budget Summary which is linked here...

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

The Shuttle is $2.9 billion and the ISS is $2.0 billion in the FY09 budget request. A far cry from $12 billion.


Offline Felix

  • Expert
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Europe.GER.bw
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #34 on: 08/30/2008 12:27 am »
but it would send a message to Russia
Russia would keep flying their part of the station and would laugh at the US. You burn your house to punish your neighbour. Does make any sense to me.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #35 on: 08/30/2008 12:33 am »
{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.
Hello A_M_Swallow!

The fundamental lynchpin for a full-up single-shot space station is access to a heavy launch vehicle. Skylab required the Saturn V. So even if a BA1000 could be built within a couple of years, there's no launching it until the Ares V is ready. But you're right. If a new space station would be desirable after 2016, NASA had better start thinking about it now. Unfortunately, there's no funds for a new station because the ISS will be sucking out all space station funds until 2016, and there's nothing now budgeted for space stations after 2016 AFAIK. Defunding the ISS now, besides sending a message to Putin, would free up $55 billion USD, according to my calculations. We could take $10 or $12 billion of that (better tell them at first that all they'll get is $1 or $2 billion ;)), and then fold the rest into the exploration budget in order to help close the launch capability gap.

Regarding obligations to ESA and JAXA. I guess a compromise would be to launch their modules as agreed, but then wash our hands of the place. That way we fulfill the letter, if not the spirit of our agreement, we still send a message to Putin, and we still free up many billions of USD for the future.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #36 on: 08/30/2008 12:37 am »
The budget summary for NASA from the FY 2009 request.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #37 on: 08/30/2008 12:57 am »
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
quickshot! YOU ARE A GENUIS!!!  8)

I never thought of that before, but that's the solution to all our problems!!!!  :o

The US bails on the ISS in a huff--but then sells its portion of the ISS to the Chinese!

It's unfair that the Chinese have been left out of the fun all these years. After all, they're a big country these days, and they're the only other man-rated nation on the planet! They get along well with Russia these days--at least the two don't mind each others various adventures (although that missile launch today certainly did give those Chinese a bit of a start!); it would be a good fit.

WOW! I am NOT being sarcastic. This would make everybody happy. The US launches the last couple of modules that only the shuttle can launch, and then it packs up and moves back home. Thus NASA frees up many tens of billions--AND--it makes even more money from the sale of the ISS.

China's flush these days--how much do you think China would pay for it?

Politically, whether you are McCain or Obama, this is a win-win strategy. You make political points for standing up to the Russians, but also you show yourself willing to shake up the status quo at NASA; but you're helping out the space lobby by finally getting NASA out of the 1980's.  ;D

Thank you for your thoughtful response Quickshot!  :)
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #38 on: 08/30/2008 01:05 am »

2009 $12 billion USD
2010 $12
2011 $7
2012 $6
2013 $5
2014 $5
2015 $4
2016 $4

Thus 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.

 :-[ Oops. You are correct sir.

Ah well, as Gordon Gecko might say, "We'll only make $40 billion USD...."  ;)

Maybe we could make up the $15 billion on the sale to China?
« Last Edit: 08/30/2008 01:13 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Ending involvement in ISS
« Reply #39 on: 08/30/2008 01:11 am »
Hey guys,

Thanks for the warm welcome to this forum! It's a great site!

I've enjoyed the conversation but it's getting time to party here on the east coast.... See you manana! :D
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Tags:
 

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