Author Topic: ISS after 2016  (Read 69501 times)

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #20 on: 08/25/2006 03:00 pm »
So the Japanese and Europe/EU/ESA have agreed to allow their expensive modules to be destroyed after only a few years of use, too?

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #21 on: 08/25/2006 03:03 pm »
We are still talking ten years, ITAR is already under attack as a short sighted ineffectual program that is doing more to hurt US science and industry than it is hindering "The Enemy".

Hopefully the US systems can be switched over to local monitoring/control and/or the communications and control could be duplicated at ESA/Russian/JAXA centers.

So you are conceding that the "army on the ground" is mostly a non issue except for the JSC MCC folks?

You keep saying "own the hardware" do you actually think the US will refuse to turn over the hardware if they abandon the ISS while our partners want to continue operations?

As for MIR, how many times did it recover power and attitude control due to the efforts of the trained, on orbit, crew?

MIR was not abandoned because it was getting old, it was abandoned because Russia could not afford to operate it at the time.

Here are a couple of choices US - VSE and the rest of the world - ISS. The US may not be able to have both but mankind can.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #22 on: 08/25/2006 03:15 pm »
I think that would be the best idea, you don't just throw away something like the ISS, it would be great for other space agencies to have it, after all it is the "international" space station.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #23 on: 08/25/2006 03:30 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 25/8/2006  10:50 AM

1.  We are still talking ten years, ITAR is already under attack as a short sighted ineffectual program that is doing more to hurt US science and industry than it is hindering "The Enemy".

2.  Hopefully the US systems can be switched over to local monitoring/control and/or the communications and control could be duplicated at ESA/Russian/JAXA centers.

3.  So you are conceding that the "army on the ground" is mostly a non issue except for the JSC MCC folks?

4.  You keep saying "own the hardware" do you actually think the US will refuse to turn over the hardware if they abandon the ISS while our partners want to continue operations?

5. MIR was not abandoned because it was getting old, it was abandoned because Russia could not afford to operate it at the time.


1.  It still is the law

2.   Can't, would have to recreate MCC in Houston, software and TDRSS network.  Big $

3.  No, mission ops is more than MCC people.

4.  Yes.

5.  It was getting too old maintain and that cost $

Additionally, the comm gear on the USOS has US scam gear on it.  Not going to provide the codes or hardware to others

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #24 on: 08/25/2006 03:35 pm »
Quote
mong' - 25/8/2006  10:02 AM

I think that would be the best idea, you don't just throw away something like the ISS, it would be great for other space agencies to have it, after all it is the "international" space station.

Yes!

Not only would the science being done in the four labs continue to be of value,
not only would the current players be able to develop their resupply technology,
not only would it give the current players a valuable on orbit training facility,
not only would it give the current players operational skills for all of the above,
it would also provide new players in manned and unmanned orbital operations a goal and destination.

These new players could be as diverse as China and Bigelow.

In any case lets get 'er done and learn what it takes to handle a system that big.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #25 on: 08/25/2006 03:38 pm »
"Not only would the science being done in the four labs continue to be of value"

US has stopped developing "real" experiments for the ISS

"These new players could be as diverse as China and Bigelow. "  
Not gonna be part of it.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #26 on: 08/25/2006 03:41 pm »
Isn't most of that stuff "added" and not permanent hardware, though,? If so, would it be possible to strip the restricted and U.S.-centric stuff from Destiny (and maybe some from Node 1) without having to break up the station configuration and still keep it functioning as far as power/environment/control/comms go?

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #27 on: 08/25/2006 03:43 pm »
Jim


There is zero chance that the US will pull out of the ISS and take kill a functioning ISS while the rest of the world is using it...  if the US does not want US scam gear handed over.. if they where to pull out of the ISS... that gear can be switched to gear from other partners...



Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #28 on: 08/25/2006 03:49 pm »
Quote
MKremer - 25/8/2006  11:28 AM

Isn't most of that stuff "added" and not permanent hardware, though,? If so, would it be possible to strip the restricted and U.S.-centric stuff from Destiny (and maybe some from Node 1) without having to break up the station configuration and still keep it functioning as far as power/environment/control/comms go?

power/environment/control/comms is the restricted and U.S.-centric stuff

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #29 on: 08/25/2006 03:51 pm »
Quote
Avron - 25/8/2006  11:30 AM

Jim

There is zero chance that the US will pull out of the ISS and take kill a functioning ISS while the rest of the world is using it...  if the US does not want US scam gear handed over.. if they where to pull out of the ISS... that gear can be switched to gear from other partners...


not that easy.  Just like PAL and NTSC

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #30 on: 08/25/2006 03:52 pm »
So much for the "International" in ISS huh?

My that ought to inspire the rest of the world to want to participate in America's VSE. I guess the US taxpayers will be footing the bill for that by ourselves.

"US has stopped developing 'real' experiments for the ISS." OK, three labs, Destiny ought to make a good bunk room. (US National Laboratory and Bunkroom, nice)

"Additionally, the comm gear on the USOS has US scam gear on it. Not going to provide the codes or hardware to others" That's nuts, scam gear on an "International" station? In the command and control loop? I worry about our nation's mindset sometimes.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #31 on: 08/25/2006 03:56 pm »
So you would want a hacker to get control of the station or a tabloid listen in on the crew's medical conference?  All of NASA spacecraft have scam gear on them.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #32 on: 08/25/2006 03:59 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 25/8/2006  11:39 AM

 Destiny ought to make a good bunk room. (US National Laboratory and Bunkroom, nice)


When they got rid of the HAB module: ISS control, ELCSS, and crew sleep station moved to the LAB.   Anyways NASA "owns" rack space in the other labs and the Russian one has yet to be seen

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #33 on: 08/25/2006 04:04 pm »
I am not making this up.  If the US gets out of the ISS, then the ISS is done.
Time table for the US getting may change wrt to Administrations but any extention past 2016 is going to effect the VSE.
That will make a lot of the fans of big rockets on this site mad (some want to end station now).

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: ISS after 2016
« Reply #34 on: 08/25/2006 04:36 pm »
Jim I dont it as the end of ISS I see it the end of a flawed US participation in one of the biggest failures in human history.

Europe and Japan arent going to give up that easily.

We pay to send up a deorbiter (What about 500-800 mill worth of development?) Deorbit the nodes and whatever else we just cant let them have even tho we worked so hard to get it up there.

Then the rest of the world will find a way to keep it up. I see a GIANT space allience that will make NASA look like a pipsqueak in the 2015 timeframe.

Think rest of the world VS USA in space. We may get to the moon and mars but they will OWN science and LEO.

Just a thought gotta go..

Offline tgrundke

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: ISS after 2016
« Reply #35 on: 08/25/2006 04:42 pm »
Gents - I agree that US support for ISS is very necessary, but with $100 billion worth of equipment in orbit, it is an investment made by many people who will want to see it continue on as long as possible.

We are neglecting the ability of 3rd party/private organizations to take up the lead for NASA and continue to maintain the station.

Necessity is the mother of all invention - and I think we may yet be surprised at the resourcefulness of the private space industry within the next ten years.

Remember - ten years ago there really *wasn't* a private space industry capable of much.  Today there is lots of fascinating work that looks like it may actually start paying dividends within another decade.  With some support, I think they may be able to keep ISS running for longer than we think.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #36 on: 08/25/2006 04:47 pm »
Can't separate the USOS from the rest of the station.  Also the deorbiter is already there:  progress and or SM

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #37 on: 08/25/2006 04:50 pm »
Quote
Jim - 25/8/2006  10:43 AM

So you would want a hacker to get control of the station or a tabloid listen in on the crew's medical conference?  All of NASA spacecraft have scam gear on them.

Key words "NASA Spacecraft", "International Space Station".

Putting proprietary equipment and software on an international project that can not be shared with the partners is irresponcible and dishonest.

At the least the partners should demand and receive whatever assistance they require to eliminate and replace this equipment and make the station viable without US participation.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ISS after 2016
« Reply #38 on: 08/25/2006 05:01 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 25/8/2006  12:37 PM

Putting proprietary equipment and software on an international project that can not be shared with the partners is irresponcible and dishonest.


It is neither.  There is no ill will or malicious intent wrt this.  The JAXA and ESA aren't sharing software and equipment either.  

NASA can't control the Russia segment and the reverse is also true.   That is why there is coordination during docking of who is in control of the station's attitude

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: ISS after 2016
« Reply #39 on: 08/25/2006 05:06 pm »
Quote
tgrundke - 25/8/2006  12:29 PM

We are neglecting the ability of 3rd party/private organizations to take up the lead for NASA and continue to maintain the station.


Station logisitics is not the issue

Tags:
 

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