The International Space Station May Shut Down in 2015...

[earthpigg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8456632.stm

in short, according to rocket scientist logic:

we need to keep the ISS up in the sky until 2020 because we can't think of anything to do with it.

also, the worlds best scientists being aware that it may shut down in 2015 means they are NOT lining up to run experiments up there and, in fact, are avoiding the ISS.

i can't make this stuff up, folks.

i don't really object to the ISS, but the folks quoted by the article aren't really doing a good job in 'selling' the notion....

[Skripka]

i don't really object to the ISS, but the folks quoted by the article aren't really doing a good job in 'selling' the notion....

I don't blame the scientists actually. We coulda gotten a great deal more science from robotic probes than the ISS. We also could get FAR more science out of probes than the US is getting ready to sink into manned exploration.

1/2 the problem was the US space shuttle. It was envisioned as a cheap, fast-turnaround means of transit. It became what it is now, more expensive and slower to turnaround than the Saturn Vs it replaced.

[cascade9]

It would be a waste to scrap it after all the lifting that had been done to get it into orbit.

If they insist.....just unbolt the US side with its stupid, backward imperial measurement units and scrap that, but keep the rest. LOL

[gnomeuser]

We just built the damn thing..

Regardless I did read an interesting proposal to turn the ISS into a moon travel vehicle rather than crashing it. You could apparently modify it and use it for a one shot moon transport mission, giving you a vast carrying capacity and still getting use out of the weight you spend billions lifting into space.

[nmccrina]

If they don't want it...I'll take it!

[DeadSuperHero]

Ugh. The bureaucracy of NASA keeps killing my hopes and dreams that someday we actually begin manned space explorations, colonies, etc.

So many science fiction writers are turning over in their graves at this point.

[Skripka]

So many science fiction writers are turning over in their graves at this point.

You'll note the operative "fiction" in the name of that genre.

Any kind of exploration CANNOT happen when lift costs are $4,000usd/Kilogram-$40,000USD/Kilogram.

[Megrimn]

We just built the damn thing..

Regardless I did read an interesting proposal to turn the ISS into a moon travel vehicle rather than crashing it. You could apparently modify it and use it for a one shot moon transport mission, giving you a vast carrying capacity and still getting use out of the weight you spend billions lifting into space.

Then land it and use it as an astronaut hotel, right? fun.

[Paqman]

i can't make this stuff up, folks.


I'm confused about what part you've got a problem with. Until there's a commitment to fund it past 2015 it would be silly to plan experiments for it.

It's a shame there's no political will to push a decision through, but space exploration is always going to take a kicking in the current economy. It'd be a hell of a shame to see the station de-orbited in 2015 though.

[MasterNetra]

Don't scrap the station I'd say, it would still be useful as a refuelling platform.

[standingwave]

Don't scrap the station I'd say, it would still be useful as a refuelling platform.

Refueling? Can you elaborate?

[handy]

As far as missions to other planets are concerned, Zubrin, made it clear nearly 20 years ago that both the Moon & the a space station are both too expensive, & that Mars is the cheapest place to set up operations.

The reason Mars is cheaper than our Moon, is that it has an atmosphere, which saves an enormous amount of fuel, to the point that the fuel required to go to Mars is less than that required to land on the Moon, due to the fuel required to slow the vehicle down for touchdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

Zubrin, eventually got some at NASA excited about his plan, & they looked at it & came up with Mars semi-direct, which added some luxury for the astronauts. ;)

There is an excellent documentary available on this topic, called "The Mars Underground", well worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU

[Mahngiel]

How about we scrap all of NASA's frivolous space expeditions until they can design an engine that gets 100+ mpg. THEN we can talk about Mars.

[handy]

How about we scrap all of NASA's frivolous space expeditions until they can design an engine that gets 100+ mpg. THEN we can talk about Mars.

Watch the video, then we can talk about Mars?

[Skripka]

How about we scrap all of NASA's frivolous space expeditions until they can design an engine that gets 100+ mpg. THEN we can talk about Mars.

How about the least of our problems with fuel for traveling are the engines themselves.

We've had fuel cell engines for 50 years now. Chrysler even invented the things, funnily enough. Yet the tech never went anywhere-I wonder why?

[Mahngiel]

How about the least of our problems with fuel for traveling are the engines themselves.

We've had fuel cell engines for 50 years now. Chrysler even invented the things, funnily enough. Yet the tech never went anywhere-I wonder why?

Same reason E86 isn't going anywhere. One could make a million guesses... or just one - fuel company lobbyists. If we had somebody with some balls, things could happen. But i won't hold my breath.

[Skripka]

Same reason E86 isn't going anywhere. One could make a million guesses... or just one - fuel company lobbyists. If we had somebody with some balls, things could happen. But i won't hold my breath.

Nope, economics. The US infrastructure is designed around gas. And will be for the visible future.

Fuel cell vehicles have existed since the 1960s. The engines exist, and they haven't gone anywhere-and NASA cannot help with that.

[HappinessNow]

this is too big of an undertaking for any governments to carry, the big businesses need to join up and fund this like a corporation. Big businesses have a larger economic footprint then all the major countries combined.

It is unrealistic to have such a project funded by taxpayers anywhere.

A Federation needs to be established with a consortium of big businesses and some select governments.

If Google and China can't find peace down here on Earth how will they ever conquer the stars?

[handy]

Nope, economics. The US infrastructure is designed around gas. And will be for the visible future.

One of Obama's prime statements at COP15 was a commitment to getting the U.S. into developing alternative fuel sources to oil, for environmental, economic & security reasons.

Let's see how he goes getting that lot through the broad minded, far sighted & generous, U.S. Senate?

[Mahngiel]

Nope, economics. The US infrastructure is designed around gas. And will be for the visible future.

Be it running off gas, fuel cell, or air, you can't tell me that NASA couldn't develop a 200% more efficient engine. Either that or give grant money to Joe in his garage, since that's where 90% of all american innovation comes from.

[handy]

The E.U. has plans for a Mars landing & China has plans for a Moon landing.

[Skripka]

Be it running off gas, fuel cell, or air, you can't tell me that NASA couldn't develop a 200% more efficient engine. Either that or give grant money to Joe in his garage, since that's where 90% of all american innovation comes from.

You're continuing to miss the point.

The engines already exist. The market chooses not to sell them though, and the infrastucture doesn't exist to support them. NASA CANNOT do anything about those problems.

[HappinessNow]

I wonder what Dr. Wernher von Braun would say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio

...since he was a major driving force behind NASA technology.


Von Braun worked on the American intermediate range ballistic missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_range_ballistic_missile) (IRBM) program before joining NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA), where he served as director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Space_Flight_Center) and the chief architect of the Saturn V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V) launch vehicle, the superbooster that propelled the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#cite_note-NASAMSFC-2) In the words of NASA, he is "without doubt, the greatest rocket scientist in history. His crowning achievement ... was to lead the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped land the first men on the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon) in July 1969."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#cite_note-3) He received the 1975 National Medal of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Medal_of_Science).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

[Paqman]

Be it running off gas, fuel cell, or air, you can't tell me that NASA couldn't develop a 200% more efficient engine.

If you're looking for folks with the expertise to improve power plants for ground vehicles, F1 are the ones with the knowhow, not NASA. NASA are aerospace technology. They do rockets and gas turbines.

[RabbitWho]

This is terrible:

1. Ireland, who are as poor as they've been since the founding of the free state now (in economic terms, not in standard of living terms) spent millions making a part for that thing, and I want to see something come of that.
2. There are already not enough people in space.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html

that talk talks about the decline in space travel, in two generations there has been no progress.
He also talks about commercial business and hopes that they will take over, that's the only way it's going to move forward.

[t0p]

Don't scrap the station I'd say, it would still be useful as a refuelling platform.

I see it more as an orbital waystation and a rocketship factory. The astronauts fly up to the ISS in a reusable space vehicle; then transfer to the Mars mission space ship, which was constructed in orbit. This way the Mars ship won't need huge rocket engines to fight Earth's gravity.

[gn2]

I wonder what Dr. Wernher von Braun would say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio

...since he was a major driving force behind.....

....nazi terror weaponry.
Von Braun was a signed up member of the Nazi party and a Waffen SS Officer.
Guess the US military, then NASA just weren't very fussy who they hired back then.

Back on topic, bring the spacestation down, do it on a clear skied night and light up the sky with fireworks.

[zekopeko]

This is terrible:

1. Ireland, who are as poor as they've been since the founding of the free state now (in economic terms, not in standard of living terms) spent millions making a part for that thing, and I want to see something come of that.
2. There are already not enough people in space.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html

that talk talks about the decline in space travel, in two generations there has been no progress.
He also talks about commercial business and hopes that they will take over, that's the only way it's going to move forward.

What are you talking about?! Ireland is poor?!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland
They are in the top 10 countries by GDP.
At one point they had 16%+ GDP growth a year. That means that their GDP doubled in only 4.3 years.


....nazi terror weaponry.
Von Braun was a signed up member of the Nazi party and a Waffen SS Officer.
Guess the US military, then NASA just weren't very fussy who they hired back then.

Back on topic, bring the spacestation down, do it on a clear skied night and light up the sky with fireworks.

I doubt he had many job opportunities in the civilian rocket sector in Nazi Germany...
Not to mention that he helped develop the "American terror weaponry" aka ICBMs.

[cascade9]

As far as missions to other planets are concerned, Zubrin, made it clear nearly 20 years ago that both the Moon & the a space station are both too expensive, & that Mars is the cheapest place to set up operations.

I've actually spoken to Zubrin, for a minute or two (at a 'mars direct' talk at university here in brsineyland). Great ideas.

Doesnt really have anything much to do with the space station...apart from the limited budget that space has and...*stops before posting gets to political by accident*


I wonder what Dr. Wernher von Braun would say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio

...since he was a major driving force behind NASA technology.

Tom Lehrer-

Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

All yrics here-
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/wernherv.htm

....nazi terror weaponry.
Von Braun was a signed up member of the Nazi party and a Waffen SS Officer.
Guess the US military, then NASA just weren't very fussy who they hired back then.

Back on topic, bring the spacestation down, do it on a clear skied night and light up the sky with fireworks.

Project paperclip wasnt a nice thing. A least von Braun wasnt Gehlen or some of he other really nasty b*st*rds that the US decided were now OK to work with/import into the US so that....*stops again before posting gets to political by accident*

Nooes @ bring it down. What a waste of lifting. Keep it in orbit..and if that is to hard, move it up to geosynch.

[Paqman]

I see it more as an orbital waystation and a rocketship factory. The astronauts fly up to the ISS in a reusable space vehicle; then transfer to the Mars mission space ship, which was constructed in orbit. This way the Mars ship won't need huge rocket engines to fight Earth's gravity.

The ISS is only in low earth orbit, I don't think you'd save as much energy as you think.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I see it more as an orbital waystation and a rocketship factory. The astronauts fly up to the ISS in a reusable space vehicle; then transfer to the Mars mission space ship, which was constructed in orbit. This way the Mars ship won't need huge rocket engines to fight Earth's gravity.

And they would avoid the very real risk of losing an insanely expensive vehicle in a launch mishap.

How about Russia's Kliper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper) space shuttle design?

It's designed, for lighter lifting and very reusable. (A bit like the earlier US shuttle designs). The design has a few stages, with one very small spacecraft that simply gets into orbit, then docks with a larger, permanent "space tug" once it is in space. That way, they aren't lifting the same junk into and out of orbit all the time.

As for keeping ISS in orbit, if they do indeed give up on the thing (please don't), I'm sure they could sell it to some crazy billionaire in Texas if they market it as a "space yacht."

[Paqman]

The trouble with the "keep it in orbit" idea is that it needs a good shove every so often to counteract atmospheric drag. So either somebody forks out for the rockets to keep it in orbit, or it eventually comes back to join us Earth-bound folks.

[Enigmapond]

The world is ending in 2012 so we won't have to worry about this...\\:D/

[Mr. Picklesworth]

The trouble with the "keep it in orbit" idea is that it needs a good shove every so often to counteract atmospheric drag. So either somebody forks out for the rockets to keep it in orbit, or it eventually comes back to join us Earth-bound folks.

I believe the idea is that the tug thing (Parom) itself has thrusters and fuel. So, it could control itself autonomously, and of course would be regularly docked with by the shuttles.

ISS gets autonomous resupply vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle), so it isn't hugely far-fetched. Granted, the process of refuelling Parom on a regular basis does strike me as potentially wasteful unless it's all carefully orchestrated, but they'll probably come up with something neat (how long has Cassini been buzzing around Saturn now?) - especially if there's still a space station to keep running.

[DarinB]

I agree with the 2012 post...who really gives a sh**.....
I think we need a lot of help down here, not up there. we aren't ready for real space travel when human are killing each other here on earth.
Maybe we should just create artificial intelligence to do stuff for us....we can call them Cylons = Cybernetic Lifeform Nodes.

[handy]

I've actually spoken to Zubrin, for a minute or two (at a 'mars direct' talk at university here in brsineyland). Great ideas.

Doesnt really have anything much to do with the space station...apart from the limited budget that space has and...*stops before posting gets to political by accident*


According to Zubrin, the Mars mission could be accomplished inside of the standard NASA budget. It is a cheapy.

(Though that budget may have shrunk in recent times?)

Personally I consider a Mars mission to be something that would have a huge range of spin-offs for humanity. There would be an unconscious strengthening of unity, there would also be a huge effect in generating more scientists from the youth growing up when the Mars mission is in the media. There would also be more technological innovation generated, just as there was when we went to the Moon; people would say well if we went to the Moon, we can work out how to do such & such...

[running_rabbit07]

They should nuke it on the 4rth of July. It'd make one hell of a fireworks show.

[HappinessNow]

They should nuke it on the 4rth of July. It'd make one hell of a fireworks show.
I don't think it would be visible?

[blur xc]

I agree with the 2012 post...who really gives a sh**.....
I think we need a lot of help down here, not up there. we aren't ready for real space travel when human are killing each other here on earth.
Maybe we should just create artificial intelligence to do stuff for us....we can call them Cylons = Cybernetic Lifeform Nodes.

Star Trek First Contact- Geez, I thought it was common knowledge that coming in contact w/ the Vulcans will unite the human race...

BM

[samjh]

The unwillingness to commit to continue operating the ISS is a sad reflection of modern society's disinterest in science in general and pure science in particular.

Arguing that the ISS should be dropped, scrapped, or broken up because it doesn't return any or enough benefits is ridiculously short-sighted. The station is not even finished, and has been in orbit for barely a decade. Are human scientific advancements measured in terms of just a handful of years now, when historically it has been measured in terms of decades and centuries? Most of the ISS modules are capable of useful operation beyond 2020, so why waste them now?

Money made by patents and spin-offs do not represent scientific value. Scientific value will be measured by future generations in the centuries beyond, who will make use of knowledge that our generation has gathered; just as we have done with knowledge passed down by our forebears.

[handy]

...
Money made by patents and spin-offs do not represent scientific value. Scientific value will be measured by future generations in the centuries beyond, who will make use of knowledge that our generation has gathered; just as we have done with knowledge passed down by our forebears.

You haven't noticed that politicians at least in countries where elections exist don't think much beyond the time span of their electoral terms?

We couldn't even get any sense out of them at COP15!

So future generations, with perhaps the exception of looking after one's own children seems to not be on the radar of most politicians, & the other corporate directors.

The shareholders seem to be too dumb to even understand that they are the ones that allow the corporation that they invest in (support) to often be involved in activity that is in reality a crime against humanity.

[chris4585]

They should nuke it on the 4rth of July. It'd make one hell of a fireworks show.

a nuke exploding above earth would destroy a lot of electronic devices on that side of the earth.

[Paqman]

a nuke exploding above earth would destroy a lot of electronic devices on that side of the earth.

It'd cause some disruption, but "destroy" is a bit strong. The ISS orbits at an altitude of about 350km, so the effects would be similar to the high-altitude nuclear tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear_explosion) done in the 60's. You might cause a bit of mischief at ground level, but most of the damage would be to satellites in orbit, which would get absolutely smoked. That's a lot of space junk to deal with.

Whether it gets brought down in 2015 or 2020 the ISS will put on a pretty enough light show when it re-enters anyway. I guess they're likely to bring it down over the Pacific though, sounds like a good excuse to go visit the family in NZ :).

[cascade9]

They should nuke it on the 4rth of July. It'd make one hell of a fireworks show.

Possibly.

Its also going to shower its orbit with lots of bits of space junk. Space junk is a serious problem already, we really dont need to make the problem worse.


The trouble with the "keep it in orbit" idea is that it needs a good shove every so often to counteract atmospheric drag. So either somebody forks out for the rockets to keep it in orbit, or it eventually comes back to join us Earth-bound folks.

True, at its current orbit. That is why I say 'move it to geosynch' rather than destroy it.


According to Zubrin, the Mars mission could be accomplished inside of the standard NASA budget. It is a cheapy.

(Though that budget may have shrunk in recent times?)

Personally I consider a Mars mission to be something that would have a huge range of spin-offs for humanity. There would be an unconscious strengthening of unity, there would also be a huge effect in generating more scientists from the youth growing up when the Mars mission is in the media. There would also be more technological innovation generated, just as there was when we went to the Moon; people would say well if we went to the Moon, we can work out how to do such & such...

Point. But IMO, going all goey-eyed over some new toy when we haven't put our current toy away is counterproductive. Its also a bit silly to destroy our current toy cause we cant be bothered to pack away the current one, 'too hard', 'not worth it' etc. (not suggesting that that is what your suggesting, but with the way that politicians think this would be the outcome)

Who knows how the ISS could come in handy in the future? Even pushed up to geosynch, it could prove to be very useful.

[Paqman]

True, at its current orbit. That is why I say 'move it to geosynch' rather than destroy it.


Could be a bit iffy radiation-wise for a manned station. Besides, even in a higher orbit I believe you've still got to do some station-keeping to maintain your position.

The ISS was always going to be a temporary outpost. It'd be nice to get another ten years out of it though.

[underquark]

Send it into Mars orbit using an initial rocket boost, solar sail an a final corrective thrust. Then use it as a space-age Ellis Island for the Mars colony.

[forrestcupp]

Those quantum physicists need to get off their hind ends and figure out how to find a wormhole. ;)

[cascade9]

Could be a bit iffy radiation-wise for a manned station. Besides, even in a higher orbit I believe you've still got to do some station-keeping to maintain your position.

The ISS was always going to be a temporary outpost. It'd be nice to get another ten years out of it though.

It is a bit 'iffy' radiation wise. Its halfway though the inner van allen belts, so the radiation levels would be higher in general, and you might well get fried in a solar flare.

Yea, there will still be some station keeping in geosynch. Its a lot lower than LEO though. I'm pretty sure that in theory, you could keep position with a solar sail alone.

It might not be liveable, but its better than dumping the ISS.


Send it into Mars orbit using an initial rocket boost, solar sail an a final corrective thrust. Then use it as a space-age Ellis Island for the Mars colony.

Easy way to get dead. Mars has no van allen belts, radiation levels get high enough to kill, fast. On the surace, its more dealable with (just bury your living/working areas deep underground). On a space station....you would need tech we havent invented yet, or a huge amount of shielding (which isnt really practical)

[gn2]

The unwillingness to commit to continue operating the ISS is a sad reflection of modern society's disinterest in science in general and pure science in particular.

Why should anyone care about science anyway?
Scientists tell us that eventually the sun will stop providing us with energy and that all life on earth will cease, so what's the point in worrying about trivial things like science any more?
If the scientists are to be believed then we're all doomed so let's just all have a big party and enjoy ourselves while we can!

[underquark]

Easy way to get dead. Mars has no van allen belts, radiation levels get high enough to kill, fast. On the surace, its more dealable with (just bury your living/working areas deep underground). On a space station....you would need tech we havent invented yet, or a huge amount of shielding (which isnt really practical)
Ah, hence the Ellis Island bit - it's just a processing port/holding facility before you go down to the colony proper. Allowing, say 50mSv exposure per person that might give you as much as six weeks before getting safely underground; more if you position the ISS in the Martian Lagrange II point using the planet to shield it from the Sun.

[handy]

...
Point. But IMO, going all goey-eyed over some new toy when we haven't put our current toy away is counterproductive. Its also a bit silly to destroy our current toy cause we cant be bothered to pack away the current one, 'too hard', 'not worth it' etc. (not suggesting that that is what your suggesting, but with the way that politicians think this would be the outcome)

Who knows how the ISS could come in handy in the future? Even pushed up to geosynch, it could prove to be very useful.

I don't care much what they do with the space station. I suspect the reason that terminating it is being considered due to financial constraints that many countries are feeling at the moment. It certainly seems like a terrible waste to destroy it.

My bringing Mars into the discussion is due to people being unaware of the fact that it is more expensive to go to the Moon than to Mars, or to setup to Launch from the space station to Mars, & to provide links to the freely available superb quality documentary on the subject. ;)

[handy]

Why should anyone care about science anyway?
Scientists tell us that eventually the sun will stop providing us with energy and that all life on earth will cease, ...

In the process, the Sun will get larger & hotter, making life impossible on planet Earth.

Which is another reason we should be preparing (terraforming) Mars for human habitation, as it is further away from the Sun & gets us closer to suitable moons of the gas giants, from where we would continue to progress in our colonisation of the Galaxy. :)

I think the prediction was 150 years to develop a warmer & more friendly atmosphere with rain & such on Mars. But we could expect it to be much quicker, because we would learn new things during that time.

[gn2]

~ gets us closer to suitable moons of the gas giants, from where we would continue to progress in our colonisation of the Galaxy. ~

It's not going to happen, we will never leave this planet.

[Paqman]

It's not going to happen, we will never leave this planet.

Maybe not, but it'll be interesting and fun to try :)

[earthpigg]

It's not going to happen, we will never leave this planet.


Everything that can be invented has been invented.

If God had intended us to fly, He would have given us wings.

et cetera. same thing.

[handy]

It's not going to happen, we will never leave this planet.

It's always a joy to be around your optimism gn2! :P