Author Topic: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028  (Read 5354 times)

Offline rubtest

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 15
Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« on: 05/22/2011 08:01 PM »
Hello ISS Forum
I have read that beyond 2028 several Modules
will not be space qualified any more, a Fact that forces
the scrapping of the ISS.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/532002main_Space_Ops_Minutes_Feb_8_2011.pdf  Page 19:
"For 2028, the ISS has a structural limitation. Space suits are a limitation because it takes two years to develop ...."
I f I understand it correctly, beyond 2028 it is out
for the ISS, right?
what do you think about the concept of evolving the ISS into a different Station in succesive steps:
1. new Service Module around 2020 which will hold
a new Station "BUS" but will have compatibility port to the ISS . after the Installation you can disconnect the older Service module and purge it.
2. a new Node 5 can be added  and after installation purge the older node 1.
3. the Solar arrays can be transfered to a new Power  beam connected to the new Service.

in such steps the structural limitation of the ISS
can be modified ( older modules away , new modules in ) . such a process is actually
not time limited and "might" save some tax payer money also . Does it sound more fisible then Starting from scratch a new station ?

Thanks
« Last Edit: 05/22/2011 10:39 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #1 on: 05/22/2011 11:27 PM »
I think the new Russian MLM module will have redundant service features. All the new Russian modules starting with MLM are designed to serve a new stand alone Russian station once the ISS is retired. So the question rather should be should the US join the new Russian station or re-certify the existing one so that the Russians have a second option of continuing the the ISS partnership.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32464
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11234
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #2 on: 05/23/2011 12:43 AM »
Node 1 cant be removed.  Too many connections.   The USOS can not survive without Node 1.  The ISS was not made for module swap outs.

No, the question is not whether the US is going to join the Russians or recert the ISS.  It is bigger than that.  Does there need to be an ISS?  Does the govt need a its own station or buy commercial?

Offline rubtest

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #3 on: 05/23/2011 03:24 AM »
Hello

As I have started this thread I  thought actually about  the technical side.
Every module that was added till now to the ISS was connected to all the resources that the station supplied: Power, computer , environment ,Life support and more.  Is it feasible technically  to connect let say to a Node2 port a modern Service Module II with one or two "old style ports" to feed the current station and several modern extension Ports which will be the seed for the second Generation Station. the big saving is time.
you do not have to get rid of  the whole ISS in 2028. only Modules that are too old and are not space qualified any more can be sent
downside.  I guess some commercial project in this direction
might push the private space sector quite a bit..

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32464
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11234
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #4 on: 05/23/2011 11:31 AM »

1.    Is it feasible technically  to connect let say to a Node2 port a modern Service Module II with one or two "old style ports" to feed the current station and several modern extension Ports which will be the seed for the second Generation Station. the big saving is time.

2.you do not have to get rid of  the whole ISS in 2028. only Modules that are too old and are not space qualified any more can be sent
downside.  I guess some commercial project in this direction
might push the private space sector quite a bit..

1.  No, a Service module can not rendezvous.  It does not have the capability.  It could not get to  the ISS>   Also, a service module can not "feed" the node.  The current service module doesn't feed anything other than the FGB.  The connections are not compatible with the node or US systems.

2.  The only modules that can be removed are the ESA and JAXA modules.   The US modules are too interconnected.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 5998
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #5 on: 05/23/2011 11:47 AM »
 I know about pressurized module lifespans, but I always wondered about the truss. It seems like it might be a good asset to develop another station around, commercial or otherwise. The pretty pictures of Bigelows and others tend to ignore the amount of power, external storage and all that stuff the truss is needed for.
 You might need to furl or discard the arrays while it's inactive to keep drag down, but you'd save a whole lot of trouble by not having to build and launch another backbone, if that's the type of station they decide to go with.
 Yeah, I know. The amount of trouble to disassemble the station and keep the truss probably wouldn't be worth it. Especially if a certain bird of prey heavy starts lofting 50 tons for $100 million.

Offline rubtest

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #6 on: 05/23/2011 08:23 PM »

1.  No, a Service module can not rendezvous.  It does not have the capability.  It could not get to  the ISS>   Also, a service module can not "feed" the node.  The current service module doesn't feed anything other than the FGB. 


of course I  am not thinking  about FCB / Zwezda exchange.
around 2020 both Modules and  unity and node 1 will be 20 years old.
at this time frame we can envision a new large module ( 53 MT :) )
with state of the art thrusters, navigation and communication center , modern life keeping and living facilities , modern  port extension capability. (maybe also for radial modules  and fuel Depot.)
It will be the  center for the ISS second Generation , similar to the role of Zwesda/Zarja/unity 22 years ago.
it will connect to the Node 2 and still get  Power from ITS, but will be prepared for the next power upgrade ( a second ITS ? )in the 2030 time frame.  around 2028 the decisions how to continue will be a lot easier.
why not ??
cheers

rubtest



 
 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32464
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11234
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #7 on: 05/23/2011 09:11 PM »

of course I  am not thinking  about FCB / Zwezda exchange.
around 2020 both Modules and  unity and node 1 will be 20 years old.
at this time frame we can envision a new large module ( 53 MT :) )
with state of the art thrusters, navigation and communication center , modern life keeping and living facilities , modern  port extension capability. (maybe also for radial modules  and fuel Depot.)
It will be the  center for the ISS second Generation , similar to the role of Zwesda/Zarja/unity 22 years ago.
it will connect to the Node 2 and still get  Power from ITS, but will be prepared for the next power upgrade ( a second ITS ? )in the 2030 time frame.  around 2028 the decisions how to continue will be a lot easier.
why not ??
cheers

rubtest


Why not?   

 1.  Can't disconnect Zaryna.
2. No money and no requirement for an 2nd generation ISS
« Last Edit: 05/23/2011 09:12 PM by Jim »

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #8 on: 05/31/2011 10:52 PM »
Does anyone remember the opening of one of the Star Trek series from the late 80's or early 90's? It should a time lapse of Freedom being constructed, but it then showed the completed space station expanding and expanding over time, followed by the launch of interplanetary spacecraft from the duel keel of the expanded station, which was followed by animation of intersteller starships. The purpose of this animation was to show how we got from present day to the days of Star Trek.

The part of when it showed that the station kept growing after its construction was complete, stuck in my head over the years. Seeing the real station constructed and completed rings similar to the Star Trek opening animation showing what was then supposed to be space station Freedom. Even though the expansion in that animation was fictional, I'm expecting it to be more real than fiction. We have the planned Russian expansion now and possible US expansion. Beyond that, as long as critical systems still work, I suspect it will remain in service and evolve further.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32464
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11234
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #9 on: 05/31/2011 11:41 PM »
no, the USOS will have to be deorbited.  It is not feasible to indefinitely maintain it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28613
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8581
  • Likes Given: 5595
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #10 on: 06/01/2011 01:06 AM »
no, the USOS will have to be deorbited.  It is not feasible to indefinitely maintain it.
What's the fundamental limit in life? Will the pressure vessels/structures themselves fail? Micrometeorite/debris impacts? Mechanical fatique? Oxidization?

Or will the machinery and cables/plumbing inside degrade, leaving it with no reason to keep it in orbit?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 5998
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #11 on: 06/01/2011 01:14 AM »
no, the USOS will have to be deorbited.  It is not feasible to indefinitely maintain it.
What's the fundamental limit in life? Will the pressure vessels/structures themselves fail? Micrometeorite/debris impacts? Mechanical fatique? Oxidization?

Or will the machinery and cables/plumbing inside degrade, leaving it with no reason to keep it in orbit?

 Weld fatigue seems to be a big one.
 I'm not usually a big fan of the GAO, but this seemed like a pretty good rundown of ISS end of life considerations.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11519r.pdf
« Last Edit: 06/01/2011 01:18 AM by Nomadd »

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #12 on: 06/03/2011 04:53 PM »
I was just thinking, in a way, the Russians will continue the ISS if their modules are separated to become independent. This is not an independence move. It is a move to gain command and control, forcing a restructuring of the station's configuration and partnership ownership stakes and agreement. It's a coup if I ever saw one!

Think about it. The Russians already said they wish to gain ownership of the FGB by either buying it or trading it with NASA for Soyuz flights. The FGB has a PMA on it. The PMA does not need to always interface with Node 1. If the US decides to abandon the station, ESA or Japan could ask Russia to continue operating their modules simply by docking them to the PMA on the FGB. ESA could also negotiate for ownership of Node 2 & 3, which they had built for NASA to begin with. Moving Nodes 2 or 3 to the PMA on the FGB would guarantee continuation of at least some modules on the US side. If there's continued access to US segment standards and interfaces, it would fool-hardy for the US not to participate in one form or another and will be forced to sit down with the Russians to negotiate participation in the "new" station and what level the US will take as a partner no longer in the lead with Russia taking on the role of leadership.

It's unfortunate that this could happen. NASA needs to sit down and very carefully plan a strategy for preventing this.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #13 on: 06/03/2011 05:16 PM »
I wouldn't be possible to berth a Japanese or European module directly to PMA-1, since both the CBMs would be passive, and you can't berth passive-to-passive.

Even if a Node were berthed to PMA-1, the amount of re-wiring work required would be prohibitive.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32464
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11234
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #14 on: 06/03/2011 07:50 PM »

Think about it. The Russians already said they wish to gain ownership of the FGB by either buying it or trading it with NASA for Soyuz flights. The FGB has a PMA on it. The PMA does not need to always interface with Node 1. If the US decides to abandon the station, ESA or Japan could ask Russia to continue operating their modules simply by docking them to the PMA on the FGB. ESA could also negotiate for ownership of Node 2 & 3, which they had built for NASA to begin with. Moving Nodes 2 or 3 to the PMA on the FGB would guarantee continuation of at least some modules on the US side. If there's continued access to US segment standards and interfaces, it would fool-hardy for the US not to participate in one form or another and will be forced to sit down with the Russians to negotiate participation in the "new" station and what level the US will take as a partner no longer in the lead with Russia taking on the role of leadership.



No, not possible.
a.  PMA's can not mate to a CBM on the APAS side.  The PMA on the FGB can not be removed.  The Node 1 to FGB connection has be disabled and can not be disconnected.

b.  Anyways, even if there was a valid FGB connection, there is no way to "simply" dock the modules to the FGB.  The ESA or Japanese modules have no method of moving and there would be no station RMS to move them

c.  The Russia segment doesnt have the power to provide nor can it handle the ECS requirements.

d.  The Russia segment doesnt have the interfaces for power and ESC.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28613
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8581
  • Likes Given: 5595
Re: Evolving the ISS beyond 2028
« Reply #15 on: 06/03/2011 09:20 PM »
no, the USOS will have to be deorbited.  It is not feasible to indefinitely maintain it.
What's the fundamental limit in life? Will the pressure vessels/structures themselves fail? Micrometeorite/debris impacts? Mechanical fatique? Oxidization?

Or will the machinery and cables/plumbing inside degrade, leaving it with no reason to keep it in orbit?

 Weld fatigue seems to be a big one.
 I'm not usually a big fan of the GAO, but this seemed like a pretty good rundown of ISS end of life considerations.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11519r.pdf
From what I see in that report, it's not weld fatigue itself, but the need to inspect for it. It's not that Station can't last longer than 2028, but that the requisite analysis hasn't been done, yet. We will know a lot more as time goes on.

(Personally, I think that something like an unpressurized Cygnus spacecraft may need to be procured in order to be able to replace large ORUs... but there seems to be a lot of redundancy to give us a lot of time to do that.)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags: