Panel Advises Longer Life For Space Station 237
suraj.sun writes "A presidential panel reviewing the US space program has found that the United States needs to boost NASA's budget by $1.5 billion to fly the last seven shuttle missions and should extend International Space Station operations through 2020. The panel also proposed adding an extra, eighth shuttle flight to help keep the station supplied and narrow an expected 5-7 year gap between the time the shuttle fleet is retired and a new US spaceship is ready to fly."
One has to wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
In reality the United States space programs are still quite advanced than most of the world (even with such old technologies) and yet you guys are neglecting it.
Decommission Shuttle at the station (Score:3, Interesting)
If they're going to decommission a shuttle, why not leave it at the station? It would provide some redundant facilities, extra living space, and most importantly, engines to boost the orbit periodically (one of the main things the shuttles do now besides delivering supplies and new components).
Re:WTF isnt a space station permanent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Every space station is temporary. Eventually things start to fail (see MIR) and end up becoming very expensive to maintain or unsafe to keep sending missions.
This is not how commercially viable megastructures work though! and that's my point!
Modern commercial structures are bipartite, consisting of a permanent shell and a modular interior. Think of any modern office building or strip mall. When one company moves out its a matter of simple retrofitting to get the next tenant company at home and functioning.
This is how a space station SHOULD work. It should have a permanent shell capable of containing life support, modular, easily replaced apparatus for essentials (air and water supply/purification), and an interior which is easily fitted and re-fitted as necessary.
Doubleplusgood points for artificial gravity through rotation to prevent bone loss of employees for future commercial tenants.
Re:Nope (Score:1, Interesting)
Bob Park and the American Physical Society disagree.
Bob Park's testimony before US Senate re: ISS [spaceref.com]
"It is the view of the American Physical Society that scientific justification is lacking for a permanently manned space station in Earth orbit."
APS, 20 January 1991
The APS recently reaffirmed its statement, but the ISS, though still unfinished, is now in orbit. The question is, what do we do now?
Re:WTF isnt a space station permanent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which leads us to the real reason we aren't aiming for permanency yet. Those orbits are very high. While other vehicles could reach it reasonably, our main space construction workhorse, the Space Shuttle, couldn't. It's too heavy and doesn't have a way to propel itself to such a high orbit, and most likely would never survive it.
So great, you can stick a space station way up there. Just don't expect the people in it to be coming home any time soon (or on the other side of things, be prepared to spend a new hundred billion to half trillion dollars over twenty years developing a vehicle that can get you there and back).
Re:WTF isnt a space station permanent? (Score:3, Interesting)
and as launch costs remain the major dominating factor in space activities, you might as well make a new station.
Piffle.
There are dozens of ways of moving the ISS into a higher orbit. Let's start experimenting with them today.
The only reason for decommissioning it in 2016 (or 2020) is the routine inability of the American government to actually do anything, coupled with the imperialist need to prevent anyone else from doing anything.
Launch costs are spread nicely across the various states, giving a political incentive to support the ISS while the shuttle is flying. Once it isn't, the political incentive dies and with it the support of the dysfunctional American government.
Oh, and does anyone believe that that same dysfunctional government is going to get a shuttle replacement flying with a 5 - 7 year gap? I'd like to hear RIGHT NOW from every self-righteous asshole who is waiting to tell us seven years from now that OF COURSE EVERYONE KNOWS that EVERY PROGRAM goes VASTLY over-schedule. If you know it right now, then put the correction factor in now. I'm betting 13 years for the shuttle replacement to fly, based on past NASA incompetence. Anyone who knows different, speak now or shut the fuck up in seven years when the program is still seven years from flight.
Ion engine? (Score:4, Interesting)
Couldn't they attach an ion engine and let the solar panel's power keep it in orbit if by chance it becomes unmanned for a while?
fallacious analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nope (Score:1, Interesting)
Also don't forget, the ISS *is* the main experiment. Going to Mars or building a real permanent station are orders of magnitude harder than going to the moon, and we need this experience in everything from design and material choices to international collaboration. Every time something breaks in the station, it's not a failure - it's value, because we sure as hell don't want the same thing breaking on a trip to Mars.
Re:option 4: the US quits participating (Score:5, Interesting)
Why deorbit it at all? They could attach an ion drive to the station and slowly raise the orbit until it won't decay for another 500 years or so. The station can withstand that much acceleration. There's certainly space enough up there, it's not like it takes up valuable room... also, lifting all that mass into orbit has been so stupidly expensive, they should at least reserve the option to use it at some point in the future. Anything else is irresponsible.
At the very least, it would be an interesting machinery longevity experiment. Re-visit the station in 50 years or so, just to see how it has stood up to the environment up there. Also, at some point in the future it will be an archaeological artifact, and valuable to future historians.
And which cost is that? (Score:3, Interesting)
You dropped a word from the phrase you were replying to; "cost" and "incremental cost" are not the same thing.
Example: the cost to produce 10,000,000 DVDs might be $10 per DVD, because the blockbuster movie cost $100,000,000 to make. But once the movie is made you don't have to make 10% more movie to make 10% more DVDs, you just have to print more disks; the incremental cost would be less than $1 per DVD.
With the shuttle things are even more complicated. Do you want the total cost per flight; the amount of money spent on the whole program divided by the number of flights? That's well over $1 billion per launch. What about the operating cost per flight? If the R&D is considered "sunk cost" and you just consider the current budget per flight, that varies widely from year to year depending on how many flights are made, and NASA's $450 million might come from one of those calculations. And the incremental cost is less still. If you cancel a shuttle flight and only fly 3 in a year when you'd planned 4, you save a bit of fuel costs, some operations costs, you don't have to manufacture another external tank... but you don't get to put all your employees on leave for 3 months, you don't get to mothball your facilities for 3 months, and so you don't save nearly as much as you might hope. I thought even the incremental cost was over $100 million per flight, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was $60 million.