Gives us just enough time for Axiom Station to be fully self-sufficient. I am very optimistic about Axiom if for no other reason on the basis of who is running it. The only private company in the world who has a staff who has actually been responsible for successfully building an operational space station.One thing I have been curious about. At the point that Axiom is at the self-sufficient stage, would the the US part of the station be able to operate if the Russian segment was disconnected?
So, there’s no technical or time-restraint reasons now (except maybe political) for Russia not to go through with their original expansion plans for the RS. At the very least, they should open the unused node module’s ports to Russian private use.I would love to see ISS grow to maximum build before it’s decommissioned in 2030.
I'm not sure about this move. How much money could be switched to the Artemis program? Would it speed up the return to the moon? What if Russia want's out, and wants to deorbit their modules?
NASA preps for ISS retirement, commercial stations:https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2022/01/19/nasa-preps-for-iss-retirement--commercial-stations-Quote from: the articleMcAlister said that by retiring the ISS, it should save NASA about $1.5 billion annually. “And in this case, we don’t need any increased appropriations. We’re just using our money smarter,” McAlister said. “And that is going to be a key enabler for our Artemis missions going forward as well as freeing up the personnel resources.”In response to a question from one of the committee members, McAlister said that NASA’s obligation of running the ISS is about $3.5 billion each year. He noted that half a billion of that are activities that NASA will want to continue to do in LEO with or without the Space Station and it will cost about $1 billion to purchase the services they need from a commercial LEO destination.
McAlister said that by retiring the ISS, it should save NASA about $1.5 billion annually. “And in this case, we don’t need any increased appropriations. We’re just using our money smarter,” McAlister said. “And that is going to be a key enabler for our Artemis missions going forward as well as freeing up the personnel resources.”In response to a question from one of the committee members, McAlister said that NASA’s obligation of running the ISS is about $3.5 billion each year. He noted that half a billion of that are activities that NASA will want to continue to do in LEO with or without the Space Station and it will cost about $1 billion to purchase the services they need from a commercial LEO destination.
Quote from: PeterAlt on 01/21/2022 01:48 pmSo, there’s no technical or time-restraint reasons now (except maybe political) for Russia not to go through with their original expansion plans for the RS. At the very least, they should open the unused node module’s ports to Russian private use.I would love to see ISS grow to maximum build before it’s decommissioned in 2030.There is a time-restraint reason; is it worth the cost to prepare and launch modules if the modules are only going to be used for a few years? Nothing is ready to go. Russia may not be able to restart these programs and launch them before 2030, only eight years from now.
Quote from: RonM on 01/21/2022 02:24 pmQuote from: PeterAlt on 01/21/2022 01:48 pmSo, there’s no technical or time-restraint reasons now (except maybe political) for Russia not to go through with their original expansion plans for the RS. At the very least, they should open the unused node module’s ports to Russian private use.I would love to see ISS grow to maximum build before it’s decommissioned in 2030.There is a time-restraint reason; is it worth the cost to prepare and launch modules if the modules are only going to be used for a few years? Nothing is ready to go. Russia may not be able to restart these programs and launch them before 2030, only eight years from now.Russia’s previous plan was to eventually disconnect the newer modules and connect them to the planned independent station. If they were to launch NEM-1 before 2030, it would make sense to detach at least that one module. Since the new station will be in a different orbit, would a Progress be capable of delivering a single module to a new orbit, or would a new vehicle be required to transfer its orbit?
Quote from: PeterAlt on 01/22/2022 09:15 amQuote from: RonM on 01/21/2022 02:24 pmQuote from: PeterAlt on 01/21/2022 01:48 pmSo, there’s no technical or time-restraint reasons now (except maybe political) for Russia not to go through with their original expansion plans for the RS. At the very least, they should open the unused node module’s ports to Russian private use.I would love to see ISS grow to maximum build before it’s decommissioned in 2030.There is a time-restraint reason; is it worth the cost to prepare and launch modules if the modules are only going to be used for a few years? Nothing is ready to go. Russia may not be able to restart these programs and launch them before 2030, only eight years from now.Russia’s previous plan was to eventually disconnect the newer modules and connect them to the planned independent station. If they were to launch NEM-1 before 2030, it would make sense to detach at least that one module. Since the new station will be in a different orbit, would a Progress be capable of delivering a single module to a new orbit, or would a new vehicle be required to transfer its orbit?I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics but based on what others have said it takes a lot of delta V to change orbital plane. I'm guessing it's not practical because the new Russian station ROSS will be in a sun-synchronous orbit. That's a 47 degree change from ISS.
Roscosmos has formally completed extension analyses for the time period through 2024 and will begin work on analyzing extension through 2030.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Quote from: wolfpack on 02/24/2022 09:57 pmDoes 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?)
At least the ISS is not in Jovian orbit.
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.
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?
Q-instead of deorbiting ISS keep it as World Heritage Site?Lueders-we've studied boosting it to higher orbit, would take 30-40 Progresses! Wish cld keep forever but fighting laws of physics. It's huge. Lots of drag. Can't leave it there as hazard.
Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin signed an order which allows #Roscosmos to begin the works on sending cosmonauts and cargo to the ISS in 2023-2027. Which means, Russia decided to stay on the ISS despite all the previous statements and “warnings on its bad technical condition”.
NASA, Japan Announce Gateway Contributions, Space Station Extension:https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-japan-announce-gateway-contributions-space-station-extensionhttps://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1593445471644962818
"...would take 30-40 Progresses" I'll bet someone in Space-X took that comment as a challenge.Form a purely engineering perspective, how long could the ISS survive as a functioning spacecraft in the space environment even if it could be boosted to a higher orbit. Perhaps there is an NSF thread about this? Thx
Quote from: AS_501 on 10/13/2022 06:46 pm"...would take 30-40 Progresses" I'll bet someone in Space-X took that comment as a challenge.Form a purely engineering perspective, how long could the ISS survive as a functioning spacecraft in the space environment even if it could be boosted to a higher orbit. Perhaps there is an NSF thread about this? ThxHow much MMH/MON-can you stuff on a StarShip? Or just berth a Starship with ISS and light a Raptor.
Ministers decided to extend European participation in the International Space Station up to 2030, enabling ESA astronauts to continue working in orbit around Earth on board Europe’s Columbus research laboratory.
Today, Canada announced its commitment to extend its participation on the @Space_Station through 2030. NASA is proud to continue our partnership with @csa_asc on station to benefit life for humanity here on Earth and out into the cosmos.
This sounds stupid of me, but what does "through 2030" mean in a NASA blog? Does it mean that the last astronaut doing "operations" will leave the ISS NET December 31, 2030? Or is there a different definition of 2030, such as FY 2030, or a different definition of "operations" taht included all of the time prior to ISS deorbiting?This becomes interesting because the 14 remaining contracted CCP missions (6 Starliner, 8 Crew Dragon) don't quite stretch to December 2030 at the current average mission duration.
So what happens in the last few years before deorbit if ISS suffers a major failure such as a frozen SARJ or a ammonia leak? Does NASA order a repair EVA(s), or call the final crew home early? Also, does it make sense to salvage some of specialized research equipment such as MELFI and CAL?
Interesting item in today's SN article about the NASA's RFP for a Deorbit Module. The RFP includes language for a possible contract extension to Sept. 2035. Curious. Everything I've read so far says NASA is insisting the deorbit take place in late 2030, possibly Q1 of 2031. How does an extension to 2035 affect the Axiom station?https://spacenews.com/nasa-proposals-hybrid-contract-approach-for-space-station-deorbit-vehicle/
NASA ISS program manager Joel Montalbano says at #ISSRDC this morning that while (most of the) the international partners have approved ISS operations through 2030, willing to go longer "if the agencies want us to." (Rocsosmos is only through 2028; they go in 4-yr increments.)
Mulholland also underscored the need for increasing the budget for the United States Deorbit Vehicle (USDV), a spacecraft expected to dock on the ISS before performing a safe deorbit and re-entry sequence back to Earth. (NASA is expected to award the contract for the design and production of this vehicle in March 2024).The new funds are also likely to be used for an upgrade that significantly improves the science capability of a physics instrument on the ISS that hunts for dark matter, cosmic rays and antimatter galaxies. The detector, known as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), was installed as an external module on the ISS in 2011. Its upgrade is expected to take an entire cargo flight, which "deserves a plus-up in the budget ahead," Mulholland said.
The head of Roscosmos,said at the conference at GCTC today, that Roscosmos will extend the operation of the #ISS as long as it is possible. Which means probably that he doesn't believe ROS will be build in the near future, even as a visited one-module station.
Russia appears ready to commit to the International Space Station to NASA's desired timeline of 2030.
Can The International Space Station Make It Until 2030?NASASpaceflight27 Dec 2024#ISS #SpaceStation #NASASince 2000, the International Space Station has been continuously inhabited, orbiting Earth as a symbol of international collaboration and human innovation. But after 25 years in space, the ISS is showing its age with leaks, outdated hardware, and operational challenges. From Zvezda’s pressure loss to spacewalk delays and cutting-edge IROSA solar arrays, we explore how the ISS is being maintained and upgraded to ensure it can last until its planned deorbit in 2030. Can the station hold on for another five years? Let’s dive into the details.
