Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
ISS Space NASA

What's Next After the International Space Station? (vox.com) 98

$100 billion was spent building the International Space Station — including 42 different assembly flights, reports Recode. Yet "after two decades in orbit, the International Space Station will shut down," as NASA re-focuses on sending humans back to the moon. (UPDATE: NASA has extended ISS operation through 2030.)

While they plan to keep it functioning as long as possible, NASA "has only technically certified the station's hardware until 2028 and has awarded more than $400 million to fund private replacements." (Which they estimate will save them $1 billion a year.)

So then what happens? When these stations are ready, NASA will guide the ISS into the atmosphere, where it will burn up and disintegrate. At that point, anyone hoping to work in space will have to choose among several different outposts. That means countries won't just be using these new stations to strengthen their own national space programs, but as lucrative business ventures, too. "Commercial companies have the capability now to do this, and so we don't want to compete with that," Robyn Gatens, the director of the ISS, told Recode. "We want to transition lower-Earth orbit over to commercial companies so that the government and NASA can go use resources to do harder things in deep space."

Private companies currently backed by NASA, including Lockheed Martin and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, could launch as many as four space stations into Earth's orbit over the next decade. NASA is also building a space station called Gateway near the moon; a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket carrying the living quarters for the station is scheduled to launch in 2024.

Russia and India are planning to launch their own space stations to low-Earth orbit, too, and China's Tiangong station, which is currently under construction, already has astronauts living aboard... Russia may leave the ISS as soon as 2025, the same year its space agency, Roscosmos, plans to launch its new $5 billion space station. The European Space Agency, which represents 22 different European countries, is now training its astronauts for eventual missions to Tiangong...

[C]ompetition for customers could get even more intense as space stations launched by China, Russia, and India open for business.

Recode ultimately sees a future where private-sector customers choose from competing space stations — and even have to consider the political consequences of "favoring one nation's space station over another..."

"In the best of scenarios, these new stations will learn from each other and massively expand scientific knowledge. But they will also make global politics a much bigger part of space, which could impact what happens here on Earth and how humanity explores the moon and Mars."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's Next After the International Space Station?

Comments Filter:
  • by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Monday December 27, 2021 @04:08AM (#62118641)

    Maybe a rather unfeasible idea given how the station has been meld together, but could parts not be sold off and repositioned with new stations? If you open this for auction, with associated costs and insurances, seems you could make a bit of a profit. Fuck, for space tourism alone, having a module from this station seems like a huge selling point.

    • Good idea, but they're obsolete and worn out, (especially the original Russian models that have been up there since 1998) so I doubt people would want to go to the trouble of splitting modules off...although it does seem a huge waste after all the money spent to build them and get them into LEO

      • I know most the modules are but some I believe are far newer. The Russian ones are technically theirs, so I am just talking about US property. Even older modules seem like they could be partially refurbished for space tourism. We know that industry is mostly bragging rights. When the station is fully decommissioned, there would be a lot to brag about with stepping foot on one of these modules plus all the historicity of it. Basically this would be the first space museum...

        • Yeah, get your point. It's true that space tourism is a thing these days...not sure if that's good or bad

        • Re: Sell the parts (Score:5, Insightful)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Monday December 27, 2021 @06:04AM (#62118747)

          The main issue with making it a museum would be the maintenance required to keep it in orbit. Currently, drag from the extremely thin atmosphere causes its orbit to shrink, so it needs to be boosted periodically into a higher orbit. That would be an ongoing cost that far exceeds what a few rich tourists can bring in.

          A one-time boost to a very high orbit can alleviate the drag, but that would put it outside the safety zone created by Earth's magnetic field. So whoever tries to visit it would be subject to fairly dangerous levels of radiation from the Sun, as well as during their passage through the Van Allen belts.

          Another problem is contributing to space debris. Small meteors are a constant threat, eventually it will be hit, which would cause it to break apart and spray dangerous fragments everywhere.

          • All rather great points except the last.

            I really don't understand the market for space tourism. You say boosting it costs more than any revenue generated from space tourism but does that depend on the size of any installation attached to it. A facility housing 4 to 6 might not be profitable but 30 might. If two of these space hotels are competing, the one with a tour of an ISS module seems like it has a market advantage and if it's mass is significantly less than the attached station, the fuel to maintain i

            • You say boosting it costs more than any revenue generated from space tourism but does that depend on the size of any installation attached to it.

              Or more crushingly against his argument, that it depends on time but he hasnt accounted for it.

              Tourism is forever. There is effectively no upper limit to how much money the old station can make, even if its completely uninhabitable such that visitors must wear full kit environmental suits and can only spend a few minutes there.

              • There is effectively no upper limit to how much money the old station can make, even if its completely uninhabitable such that visitors must wear full kit environmental suits and can only spend a few minutes there.

                Or... there is effectively no upper limit to how much money if could lose. Tourism is a high cost business to run.

                Also, are the people who are going to be paying the money to boost the ISS into a higher orbit going to be collecting those tourism profits (if any)?

                If the idea is that the U.S tax payer would foot the bill for the benefit of some future space entrepreneur that is not exactly a compelling case for NASA to do this with its existing resources, nor are you likely to get special appropriations for i

            • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

              The issue with space debris is magnified by the amount of time it stays in orbit. If it stays as a museum for 100 years, that's 5x the exposure to meteorites that its current 20-year life has. If it stays for 1000 years, it's 50x the exposure. It being blasted apart by an unlucky hit is inevitable as long as it stays up there.

              While having 5 new stations would create the same problem in 1/5th the amount of time, if you de-orbit them after a few decades, the problem goes away.

              • Yes, as it turns out, sooner or later a space station is going to get struck in a critical part by a meteorite and likewise as I said, we are going to have to consider cleaning up debris. Your explanation of statistics is superfluous, in that it basically just states how stats work. The risk is minimal enough that we are planning to build many more space stations and in no way are those space stations designed to be more resilient to meteorites. The inevitablity is simply, sooner or later such an impact wil

    • Re:Sell the parts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Monday December 27, 2021 @05:18AM (#62118699)

      Maybe a rather unfeasible idea given how the station has been meld together, but could parts not be sold off and repositioned with new stations?

      Russia might split off their parts of ISS to be the core of their independent station. Putting any part of the ISS into a different orbit would burn so much fuel that it would be cheaper to build and launch something new.

      If you open this for auction, with associated costs and insurances, seems you could make a bit of a profit.

      Who would buy it and what would they use it for? If the inclination of the orbit wasn't so high then maybe parts would be useful as an oasis to stop before heading off to the moon or Mars. With the orbit it has now the ISS has very limited uses. It's too steep to act as a fueling station and too shallow for getting a good look at Earth for weather/climate observations, mapping, or spying.

      Fuck, for space tourism alone, having a module from this station seems like a huge selling point.

      It might make a museum but that means people go there, look around, and go back to Earth. It won't be a stopping point for going on to the moon. Given the age of the station the parts in orbit may not be safe to occupy much longer. The orbital museum would need a new module for tourists to live in, and then tourists may have to suit up to tour a depressurized museum piece. Keeping pressurized oxygen would become a fire hazard, a rapid decompression hazard, and biological hazard (fungus or something growing in inaccessible parts of the station but still can be breathed in).

      There was a joke about the ISS being a place for the Shuttle to go, and the Shuttle a vehicle to service the ISS. Both projects were highly political and that meant compromises made to their utility for science. That's not saying they were worthless for science, they were quite valuable in advancing the science and technology of space exploration. The problem was to get funds out of Congress they had to be nice to the Russians to get the ISS, and NASA had to play nice with the Department of Defense to get the Shuttle. The ISS was in an orbit that was easy for Russia to reach, a bad orbit for much else. The Shuttle was built to specifications to service early spy satellites, a mission that became obsolete very quickly with newer satellite technology.

      It would be great to see ISS remain in orbit indefinitely as a museum piece but I don't see that happening. I'm sure parts will be ripped out and put in museums on Earth but the bulk of the station will burn up as it is brought out of orbit.

      • Yeah. It would be kind of great. I also understand the points you make about tourism. I know other modules would be needed and mitigating hazards would be a serious concern.

        As for the fuel, I was wondering about that. I mean seems like you could adjust the orbit gradually, over 3 to 5 years and in that period potentially retrofit or add more modules. We don't have the shuttle anymore though, so I don't really know how manned retrofit missions could be achieved. Since building such a station would take time

    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      an expensive space tourism gimmick is mostly what it has been in these 20 years. contrary to popular belief, observing how bacteria do in zero gravity is not really useful science. now it's old and crumbling down and is a security hazard, it's just not even profitable to have millionaires having selfie weekends there. they have other options to do that which don't stink as bad.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      could parts be sold off[?]

      Toilet bracket: $20.00
      Shipping & Delivery: $35,000.

  • No atmosphere -> a launchpad for laser-propelled interstellar probes.
    Much matter + low G -> a site for space elevator-driven construction of generation-ships.
    • No atmosphere -> a launchpad for laser-propelled interstellar probes.

      Newton says what?

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Newton says "Conservation of Momentum".

        See radiation pressure.
        • That's only part of what Newton says. I wasn't disputing the validity of a launch laser.
          However, if you keep reading, you'll reach Newton's third law.

          Your launch laser is equivalent to a drive.
          Planets make great launch stations because they have a whole shit ton of mass. Hard to move.
          Orbital stations? Not so much.
          • There are plenty of ways to use an orbital station as laser push station.
            a) a simple ion thruster on the station compensates for a simple laser "reflection based" probe "engine"
            b) the probe hs fuel, the laser is only igniting the fuel, hence transferring mostly energy and not momentum
            c) in both cases you even can imagine to balance propulsion by having your solar panels work as solar sails and counter the momentum
            d) the laser could be used to just transfer energy and the probe is running on a plasma or ion

            • There are plenty of ways to use an orbital station as laser push station.

              Of course there are. This isn't about how you would go about accomplishing this worthless task.

              a) a simple ion thruster on the station compensates for a simple laser "reflection based" probe "engine"

              That requires fuel. Fuel must be lifted from Earth.

              b) the probe hs fuel, the laser is only igniting the fuel, hence transferring mostly energy and not momentum

              This statement is nonsensical.
              A photon has momentum. You can't ask it to leave the momentum at home and just transfer its energy.

              c) in both cases you even can imagine to balance propulsion by having your solar panels work as solar sails and counter the momentum

              Nonsense.
              Sure, it's hypothetically possible with large enough sails, but for any impulse worth talking about, you're talking kilometers of sail.

              d) the laser could be used to just transfer energy and the probe is running on a plasma or ion drive

              Firing the laser will impart an impulse on the inertial space station. It will accelerate i

              • b) the probe hs fuel, the laser is only igniting the fuel, hence transferring mostly energy and not momentum

                This statement is nonsensical.
                A photon has momentum.

                And what has the momentum of the photon to do with that? (* facepalm *)

                Firing the laser will impart an impulse on the inertial space station. It will accelerate it.
                Obviously. But somehow you forgot point a) ....

                Sorry, I'm tired about your fake physics knowledge, so I do not comment on the rest of your post.

                • And what has the momentum of the photon to do with that? (* facepalm *)

                  I imagine you facepalm yourself a lot.
                  You said:

                  b) the probe hs fuel, the laser is only igniting the fuel, hence transferring mostly energy and not momentum

                  That's not a thing. It's the ravings of a lunatic.

                  A photon driver is a photon drive. Momentum is not separable from energy. p=mv.
                  The ratio of m to p is static, because v is c.
                  So what does the momentum of the photon have to do with that? Just pointing out that you're a fucking moron, and what you said is fucking nonsensical.

                  Firing the laser will impart an impulse on the inertial space station. It will accelerate it. Obviously. But somehow you forgot point a) ....

                  No, I didn't. I directly responded to point A.
                  You're the one who pretends like point A is not a problem. Probably because you suck at

    • > Much matter + low G -> a site for space elevator-driven construction of generation-ships.

      A lunar elevator, however, could be constructed using commercially available mass-produced high-strength para-aramid fibres (such as Kevlar and M5) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fibre.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      So, apart from all the money seems feasible!

  • with little to show for it that couldn't have been achieved with uncrewed missions a lot cheaper. If private companies want to pursue it, fine, but let countries spend the money on more useful things here on Earth, or on uncrewed space exploration.

    • by Ă…ke Malmgren ( 3402337 ) on Monday December 27, 2021 @05:51AM (#62118727)
      Human flight was once tremendously expensive too, now it's a vital part of our world. And while humans and hardware leaves Earth, the actual money doesn't, and the innovations it pays for are good for all mankind.
      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        > Human flight was once tremendously expensive too, now it's a vital part of our world.

        But we are not anywhere near there yet for space. It has one of the slowest improvement curves of any technology (except maybe flying cars nuke fusion).

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Human flight was once tremendously expensive too

        Balloons became affordable in the 19th century and heavier then air flight in 1903 when some bicycle parts were cobbled together to fly and a dozen years later mass production made them common.
        Basically flight has been affordable for the wealthy since invented, the Wright brothers weren't super wealthy and I believe not even particularly wealthy, being mechanics.
        Now, 60 odd years since the first man in space, only the wealthiest people in the world can afford to fly into space, mostly suborbital.

  • ...maybe one day we will find astronauts out of cape Canaveral showing a sign: "I drive rockets for food..."
  • Spacex's Starship will soon be able to launch the mass of the ISS in a single flight. That fact changes the game and renders the summary meaningless.
  • So far, I haven't seen anything that would motivate a corporation to go to space other than space tourism. 99% of low earth orbit usage is satellites. You simply don't need a manned station for that.
  • I'd like to know how a space station will "massively expand scientific knowledge". We've been doing this shit for decades, what other experiment is left?
    • by tragedy ( 27079 )

      We've been doing this shit for decades, what other experiment is left?

      Actually building a spinning station with simulated gravity. That way we can find out once and for all if humans can actually live long-term in low gravity environments like you would find on the Moon or Mars or if they will experience the same kind of bone density loss and eye problems, etc. that they experience in freefall.

    • > We've been doing this shit for decades, what other experiment is left?

      That's a bit along the lines of "all has been discovered".
      Keep imagining! Lots more to learn & discover ;-)
  • When these stations are ready, NASA will guide the ISS into the atmosphere, where it will burn up and disintegrate.

    Or, given NASA's track record, it will enter the atmosphere, start to burn up and promptly plough into Western Australia. They're still finding bits of SkyLab there! And NASA never paid the littering fine to Esperance, either.

    • They're still finding bits of SkyLab there! And NASA never paid the littering fine to Esperance, either.

      Have they tried selling the bits on eBay?

      • I was trying to find an example, but couldn't. There are certainly new reports about SkyLab parts on eBay; for example this [space.com].

  • Who's decision? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Monday December 27, 2021 @07:51AM (#62118845) Journal

    The politicians and accountants or the scientists and engineers?

    It seem like a tremendous waste or resources to let it burn up rather than push it out into higher parking orbit even if only to provide resources for the future.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      But the maintenance cost and time on old parts also has to be considered. There comes a time when launching newer modules is cheaper than maintaining old ones.

      • How about considering the ISS modules as raw material when we finally get around to doing space based manufacturing or refining?

        Am sure the ISS module component alloys and materials are already known. Might make things easier having a chunk of known material out there, and with known quality.

        It does not have to be in working condition if you going to melt it and build something else out of it.

        • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Cost-effective re-melting & pressing metals in space is a loooong way off.

          • Well, how about seeing how a known material is affected during long exposure in space? Maybe check on ISS modules every 5-10 years, to see how the material degrades.

            It will probably be something worth doing and knowing, if we are planning to have rockets / satellites / space stations / etc for many years up there. We can't exactly visit an old satellite from 50 years ago to check on it easily. Especially if one of the modules is attached to a new station. Even if not used for anything else, except to check

  • by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) on Monday December 27, 2021 @07:58AM (#62118855)

    There is too much space mold [science.org].

    Seriously.

    It won't pass a building safety inspection in any state and besides, the state of California has determined that the ISS contains material that is known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

  • At first it seems wasteful to orbit tons of usable hardware put into orbit at great cost. Give it to me if you are done with it; seems a frugal circular economy response. But think of the downside. The more junk in orbit there is the likelier it becomes that collisions will cause a chain reaction of collisions: a Kestle cloud of high velocity debris depriving us of LEO for aeons, and making future passage through this high velocity shrapnel field that once was once pristine empty space problematic. So

    • a Kestle cloud of high velocity debris

      That should be Kessler [wikipedia.org], not Kestle.

    • Space debris is a real concern, but for the record, it typically doesn't last eons. At least, not in LEO where space stations are located.

      Debris left in orbits below 600 km normally fall back to Earth within several years. At altitudes of 800 km, the time for orbital decay is often measured in decades. Above 1,000 km, orbital debris will normally continue circling the Earth for a century or more.

      For comparison, I believe the ISS orbits at 400km. Geostationary orbit is at ~35,000km, so it might last eons out there.

  • Well, I don't relly know but in my opinion this "lets de-orbit them and get burned" is a mirror of our waste culture.

    Is it really so difficult to at least safe the solar panels? A few ion thrusters that push them to 10,000km hight? for later reuse?

    Or what about putting ion thrusters everywhere and trying to get it into a low orbit of the moon, like 100km for later safe de-orbiting? Might take a decade to let them fly there ...

    But for me it is absurd to let a 100billion dollar project burn up in reentry ...

    Y

    • Plenty of things are scrapped once they reach the end of their lives.

      Jumbo jets. Cruise ships and war ships. Bridges.

      There's not a lot of value in saving the parts for re-use when those parts are brittle, worn-out and obsolete.
      • The concrete of bridges is reused.
        Warships metal usually - at least in our times - is reused.

        That thing is just burning up ...

  • It's amazing,

    after ruining everything on earth for the sake of money, let's give away low orbit to commercial use.

    profit of a few instead of benefit for all, cost reduction, I have no idea what could go wrong.

  • We can fund it from from the first 3 months of 2022's the US military's budget.

  • I'm as ardent a space-advocate as anyone, and sure, I'd love to see our L-points littered with O'Neill habitats but...but why would all these companies do such a thing?

    US Corporations (and most in the western world) have trouble making THREE year plans and sticking to them, much less a plan that's going to take a decade or more of MASSIVE, no-return investment to even *start*, much less tolerate the decades it's going to take for payback for such a project (even if that payback is guaranteed to be googols o

  • They just want to destroy it?! Land it on the Moon, for god's sake! Launch it into deep space! It was expensive. It is our hopes and dreams. It's proof that we can get off this planet and go settle Mars or something. It's proof that there's something Out There and that we can go there. And the Own You's That Be are just going to get away with this?! We should not be forced to go through the Resource Wars just because some corporation owners want more redundant profits by keeping us in the same cattle pen.
  • Politics will drag humanity's worst attributes where they should not be.

    Politics and religion have proven to be mankind's biggest blunders.

    Perhaps, somehow, (we) figure out how to behave like an advanced, space-faring species before we screw that up.

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Working...