Author Topic: Biden-Harris Administration Extends Space Station Operations Through 2030  (Read 28272 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7135
  • Likes Given: 3066
A number of interesting points about the future of ISS were made in the report:

Quote from: page 4 of the report
Roscosmos has formally completed extension analyses for the time period through 2024 and will begin work on analyzing extension through 2030.

Quote from: page 22 of the report
Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and CSA have indicated their desire to continue ISS operations through 2030, pending coordination within their respective governments and in accordance with their applicable decision-making procedures.

Quote from: page 12 of the report
NASA and its partners have evaluated varying quantities of Russian Progress spacecraft and determined that three can accomplish the de-orbit [of the ISS]. Additionally, Northrop Grumman has been expanding the propulsion capabilities of its Cygnus spacecraft, and NASA has been evaluating whether Cygnus could also be part of the vehicle capability needed to the de-orbit the ISS.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55503.msg2336767#msg2336767
« Last Edit: 02/02/2022 03:34 am by yg1968 »


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7135
  • Likes Given: 3066

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2540
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 97
For obvious reasons, Biden's stance on the ISS might be forced to change soon:
https://spacenews.com/biden-sanctions-will-degrade-russian-space-program/
Quote
“We estimate that we will cut off more than half of Russia’s high-tech imports, and it will strike a blow to their ability to continue to modernize their military. It will degrade their aerospace industry, including their space program,” Biden said in a White House address outlining new sanctions.
I'm a bit concerned on the ISS and EXoMars, but uncertain if it warrants a thread; but at the least without Russian propulsion I can't imagine the ISS lasting to 2030.  I understand, barring the politics that supersede both NASA and Roscosmos, launches for the next handful of years should still be secure (?), but 2030 feels like a shakier estimate than a month ago.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Does NASA have plans to de-crew the ISS in the event of geo-political conflict? I would hope so and that it includes the return of US and US-allied crew to US waters.

Feels bad to have to say it, but I think we need it.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
What happened to the concerns about the segment seals and the Aluminum structure (at a crystaline level) degrading?  Political decisions can't change physics.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Does NASA have plans to de-crew the ISS in the event of geo-political conflict? I would hope so and that it includes the return of US and US-allied crew to US waters.

Feels bad to have to say it, but I think we need it.
The Dragon 2 is being used to ferry American astronauts to the ISS, so NASA will never de-crew the ISS.

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1035
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 971
Does NASA have plans to de-crew the ISS in the event of geo-political conflict? I would hope so and that it includes the return of US and US-allied crew to US waters.

Feels bad to have to say it, but I think we need it.

At least the ISS is not in Jovian orbit.




(I know, mods, a bit off topic, but after the last week I think we need a little levity. And I wonder how many of our members saw this in the theater?)
« Last Edit: 02/25/2022 04:39 am by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12099
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18210
  • Likes Given: 12171
Does NASA have plans to de-crew the ISS in the event of geo-political conflict? I would hope so and that it includes the return of US and US-allied crew to US waters.

Feels bad to have to say it, but I think we need it.

At least the ISS is not in Jovian orbit.




(I know, mods, a bit off topic, but after the last week I think we need a little levity. And I wonder how many of our members saw this in the theater?)

I'm old enough to have seen it in the theater. And having lived all of my life in Europe I have alwasy known that eventually it would come to this point. ISS will likely soldier on for a few more years, but once it is gone, so will be any sort of systematic cooperation in space between Europe and the USA on one side, and Russia on the other side.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
At least the ISS is not in Jovian orbit.

I think if it's in Jovian orbit, it'd actually be easier, since the nature of a Jovian mission means they won't need much from Earth and would be mostly independent, so the like of Rogozin won't have any say in the matter, it would be up to Cosmonauts and Astronauts on the ship to decide what to do, and they can be trusted to be professionals.

The reason ISS' continued existence is being doubted is because it's heavily dependent on Earth, and Earth is pretty crazy these days.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Is there really no concrete plan that could ensure ISS survival in the event of detaching the Russian segment? Surely somebody has actually analyzed this.

The easiest solution would be to just add bigger fuel tanks to a Cygnus, maybe and launch it on the Falcon in Antares becomes unviable.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2319
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1957
  • Likes Given: 1148
I can't believe I'm saying this, but it is time to splash the ISS and get on with replacements that do not involve Russia or China.  It would be interesting to see how fast commercial replacements could come on line if the ISS money is shifted to them.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11087
Let's do our best to stay out of politics. I know it's hard. Thanks!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline whitelancer64

Is there really no concrete plan that could ensure ISS survival in the event of detaching the Russian segment? Surely somebody has actually analyzed this.

The easiest solution would be to just add bigger fuel tanks to a Cygnus, maybe and launch it on the Falcon in Antares becomes unviable.

Detaching the entire Russian segment isn't plausible. Zarya is permanently attached to Unity / Node 1, and Zvezda is old enough that it's not worth removing.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 1850
Zarya is owned by NASA, however, is it also controlled by NASA? Or controlled from russian ground control together with the rest of the RSS?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7135
  • Likes Given: 3066

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7135
  • Likes Given: 3066
Does NASA have plans to de-crew the ISS in the event of geo-political conflict? I would hope so and that it includes the return of US and US-allied crew to US waters.

Feels bad to have to say it, but I think we need it.

At least the ISS is not in Jovian orbit.

(I know, mods, a bit off topic, but after the last week I think we need a little levity. And I wonder how many of our members saw this in the theater?)

What movie is that?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2589
  • Likes Given: 2898
Was that movie 2010?  A spin off from "2001 A Space Odyssey". 

The irony kind of applies here. 
« Last Edit: 03/01/2022 01:07 pm by spacenut »

Offline pk67

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • EU
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
In the context of Mars colonization plans, the task of maintaining the non-Russian part of the ISS on LEO seems to be a relatively easy task. What do the experts think?
Why not send a third stage (Falcon), raptor-powered, to a LEO equipped with a mooring interface to the ISS instead of a Dragon?
Russian propaganda in the person of Rogozin suggests that the US does not currently have any alternative technique to keep the ISS in orbit.
How is it in reality?
If the vac-raptor is designed for long periods in space and for multiple use during a space mission, even as far as the orbit of Mars, it seems that using this drive to maintain the ISS on the LEO and perhaps even change the orbit inclination angle to the optimal one in terms of access. from the launch pads located in the USA.

It is not my intention to open a political discussion on this thread. I would just like to point out that if there is no nuclear war in the next few years, replacing US-Russian cooperation in space with US-Ukrainian cooperation would be a big blow to the image of Russia as a modern country open to international cooperation. At the same time, it would be a recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty and its contribution to strengthening international solidarity in the defense of democracy and peace in the world.
Occupied and deprived of sovereignty by Russia, Ukraine on Earth would have its sovereign module in space for itself, which Russia could not occupy without risking retaliation and the destruction of Russian satellites in space. It seems to me that in the current geopolitical situation, such a program as sketched above is much more attractive in the media dimension than landing on the moon or building a base on the moon. Thanks to this, it could gain greater financial support for its long-term implementation. A separate topic is the possibility of transferring offensive technologies of anti-satellite weapons to non-NATO countries in order to increase their security.

Offline StormtrooperJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 15
In the context of Mars colonization plans, the task of maintaining the non-Russian part of the ISS on LEO seems to be a relatively easy task. What do the experts think?
Why not send a third stage (Falcon), raptor-powered, to a LEO equipped with a mooring interface to the ISS instead of a Dragon?
Russian propaganda in the person of Rogozin suggests that the US does not currently have any alternative technique to keep the ISS in orbit.
How is it in reality?

This doesn't work in reality, firing a a raptor that is physically connected to the station would tear it to pieces, nevermind the time it would take to design, build, and test said 3rd stage.

There's already an existing solution to this: Cygnus(Though it will need to be launched on a falcon 9). A Dragon could probably be made to work, although that is not ideal.

Tags: Russia ISS dragon 2 
 

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