stargazer777 - 14/10/2006 6:43 PMI wouldn't assume the kind of limited lifespan you are describing for the ISS. There are so many variables to take into account: continual upgrade and repair, new and improved modules, and the determination of the participating nations to keep it alive. All of these argue, in my mind at least, for a much longer lifespan for ISS than was anticipated.
Jim - 15/10/2006 7:51 AMQuotestargazer777 - 14/10/2006 6:43 PMI wouldn't assume the kind of limited lifespan you are describing for the ISS. There are so many variables to take into account: continual upgrade and repair, new and improved modules, and the determination of the participating nations to keep it alive. All of these argue, in my mind at least, for a much longer lifespan for ISS than was anticipated.There is limited life. The FGB is almost 10 years old. It is not certified for 20 years. MIR was onorbit for only 15 yearsThe Service Module was suppose to be MIR 2. It has some old designs in itthere isn't any continual upgrade program.There isn't any new and improved modules, other than the 4 still on the ground and they don't replace the SM or FGB
hektor - 15/10/2006 9:26 AMI have never seen any convincing scenario describing how to fly the ISS without NASA.
Jim - 15/10/2006 9:44 AMNo matter how you wordsmith it, Any version of it would have to be supported by NASA and use limited NASA resources. Can't call it a "National Laboratory" and cuts ties with NASA. Congress says a lot but usually doesn't back it up with $. It doesn't matter if there is a "National Laboratory", if no one is funding the experiments and PI's"The fact that there is not currently an upgrade program in place for ISS does not mean that there will not BE one. Same is true of the potential for new or upgraded modules. " Where are the $$ for this. If it isn't budgeted now, it is going to come out of someone's hide. CAM is not around anymore. No HAB. If there are to be more modules, then there should be studies of them now."The fact that NASA doesn't have such plans doesn't mean anything at all"Usually it does. If no one is planning for it, it is harder to do.
Jim - 15/10/2006 10:31 AMIt is not just MCC-H, that is just a facility It is the NASA and contractor personnel of the MOD that does the flight planning, support and control of the mission. It is the NASA JSC Engineering group and the Boeing/subs contractor team that provide the sustaining engineering. This can't be separated from NASA, since many of these people are matrixed and support multiple programs. "stroke of a presidential pen on an Act of Congress" like that is really going to occur. Same as NASA being dissolved. Too many cooks in the kitchen to really affect a change at that level.
Zoomer30 - 14/10/2006 10:25 AMIt makes you wonder if they are a little "worried" about the US getting a nice, cheap to use spacecraft for sending people to the station. They wont be needed to send people up anymore and....well....bye bye $$$.
CuddlyRocket - 16/10/2006 8:32 AMIf the Russians and ESA want to continue using the ISS after 2016, the US will come to terms. What conceivable benefit would it be to the US to upset them by 'insisting' on the closure of the facility?