Commercial Use of the ISS Beyond 2020
Marc’s note: Although scheduled for launch this December, the Russian Nauka (FGB-2) module, also known as the Multi-Purpose Module (MLM), will most likely fly in early 2014. It will replace the PIRS module which will be de-orbited.
With the addition of the Nauka (meaning science) module, yet another piece of the global orbiting laboratory will be in place. But what happens beyond 2020. While some ISS member nations have expressed an interest in using the station beyond 2020, other’s are reluctant to consider it, yet.
Perhaps this is an opportunity to expand the membership of the ISS community to include other nations and commercial customers. By that time SpaceX, Boeing or Sierra Nevada will have commercial crew vehicles already flying to the ISS on government contracts. How about letting them send private astronauts working for commercial interests to use this one of a kind laboratory? In this way the ISS can be transitioned from a government sponsored entity to a public private endeavour potentially defraying some costs otherwise paid by the public. After all, the space station is there, it cost a lot, why not keep using it?
You’d need to replace the modules on the ISS, otherwise it could get pretty decrepid. That’s what happened with Mir by the end.
Although some modules/items will need to be replaced, it might be a good idea to leave the replaced hardware up there, attached at the end points, to be used for training and testing. On-orbit OJT capability would be truely priceless. For instance, with a little bit of control hardware added you could simulate CEV operations or plan/practice replacement of subassembles that have become “space-welded” in over time.
ABSOLUTELY! Why not keep using it?!? In the near future, it may even serve as a vacation spot for the well-to-do! Lol!
Is there an article with this headline or just the comments?
No article. Just an open discussion for those interested.
How much will it cost to run? Who is going to pay those costs? Who will become responsible or de-orbiting it safely? And what else could that money be used for?
The same it costs now or more or less.
Governments who continue wanting to maintain it and the companies with new vested interest. Probably at least SpaceX.>
Each country is already legally responsible for maintaining each module the put up. So if they want to deorbit it that’s on them.
The money could be used for anything. That’s a perennial question for any project. I like Peter Marquez’s answer to that question the most:
http://www.quora.com/Space-…
Those would be questions that would have to be answered by the parties involved.
I imagine the countries stay responsible just as they are now, but with more costs being paid by commercial entities. They’d basically pay NASA.
I agree — open up to private interests. It’s sad that it’s necessary to even defend continued use of the ISS. But it’s also understandable: it’s run by governments, not a company. I don’t mean that in the government-is-inefficient way; I just mean that due to the nature of how governments work the ISS is seen more as a line item that needs defending than a bold new product that can be updated and advertised annually, for example.
Wrote up some more thoughts on this here: http://noblepioneer.com/pos…
One of the advantages of the ISS is its modularity. As modules wear out or become obsolete, they can be replaced. Given decent management and a closing business plan, there is no reason why the station, in continually evolving form, couldn’t fly for a very long time.
Not all modules are so easy to replace. If I remember, some (particularly on the USOS side) weren’t even designed to be detached after assembly. And even if they are all detachable, extracting, for example, Destiny (which will be 20 years old in 2020), would be a significant operation since it’s attached (not berthed) to the truss.
And if launching and operating a new station using, say, inflatable modules, turns out to be less expensive than maintaining ISS, then it would be a hard sell to commercial interests.
You are correct, however modularity is not only at the module level, but smaller elements as well such as the racks that fill the US Lab, Nodes, Columbus and JEM and contrary to mattmcc80, all of the USOS elements were designed explicitly for modularity. Only the Russian modules are not. ISS was designed as a set of building blocks to be used not only for space stations but for future lunar or Mars bases, trans-planetary vehicles, etc. Fabric inflatables like the Bigelow modules were considered even back in the early station days but were rejected because of the logistical support they require. Unless you simply want a lot of empty pressurized volume, inflatables are not that great. The US module design also enables access to any holes that might occur in the pressure hull due to penetration bv micro-meteoroids or other debris in orbit for patching of leaks. A hole in an inflatable can cause structural problems when fabric is your only structure.
Rarely does good politics make for good science, commerce or exploration. Commercial use? Too low an orbit; to high an inclination; and way too complicated to service on a budget. The occupants spend a great deal of their time maintaining themselves & the equipment. Good for doing some of the needed life science experiments; but not all. Does anybody here know how many man hours it takes to plan an execute the standard repair EVA…Good God above! Commercial endeavors? I think not! Want to grow crystals or some such? First, build a self contained, mostly autonomous lab (aka Skylab) on Earth in your shirt-sleaves and launch it on an HLV to a more accessible orbit and you would be able to go broke more easily & cheaply. I love space exploration and believe its worth the money; but “The Man Who Sold The Moon”? We’re not there yet.
With commercial crew service contracts set to begin in late 2017 or early 2018, it would only give about two years of American human access to the ISS. As long as commercial crew is being funded, then ISS life will be extended beyond 2020 and hopefully at a minimum to 2028.
“American launched human access” to be precise, and I hope you’re right. There is an argument that ISS is slowing us down for other things by taking funding but I think they need a little more time to use it, international partners want it, and it does have a good side effect of spurring launch development in a smart way.
The time is ripe to add more countries and entities (and yes that includes having Shenzhou capsules dock). If there was no ISS up there then the only people going into orbital space would be from China. And I cannot see the U.S. Congress ordaining the immediate construction of a Moon base or mission to Mars. And even if it did, it would soon end up like the doomed Project Constellation.
Originally that is what I thought, but take a look at the President’s proposed 2014 NASA Budget. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740… It looks like the gradual decrease in commercial spaceflight funding is replaced by an increase in ISS operations funding through 2018. Commercial Crew and Cargo service contracts (not development) are funded through the ISS office, leading me to believe that reductions in commercial funding will largely have an impact on programs within the ISS office as opposed to broader agency programs. But the budget estimate is only through 2018. Once SLS lifts off the budget might be very different. Also, I think NASA has more to lose without the ISS in the short term (space time that is). Companies like Bigelow (and hopefully others) are developing and launching mini stations that can serve as the next generation of LEO stations. NASA must hold on to the ISS at least until SLS is proven successful, which by 2020 is cutting it too close.
ISS will NEVER be turned over to private interests-it will always be maintained under U.S. control at the very least. If for no other reason that it is a simple reconnaissance platform.
What? Go back to space cadet school.
NEVER seems a mighty long time. At some point either the facility as a whole will be replaced or the cost of maintaining it will be far in excess of its value to government programs. When either of these events comes to pass, I think they’ll sell the ISS off to private concerns without hesitation, assuming that anybody wants it and can afford it. Also, at some point, its reduced reliability will make it unsafe (by spec) as a government training/research facility.
I think there’s a good chance that Russia would take it over. They like space stations, always have. It’s a source of pride for them, and I think they are committed to continuing this legacy. They wouldn’t have ditched Mir when they did except they were pressured to by U.S. They are well aware that from a practical viewpoint ISS started as a Russian space station with Zarya and Zvezda. They have mentioned pulling out their modules if ISS becomes decommissioned and using them on a new Russian space station, but it could be that they are also thinking about a scenario where they take over ISS if U.S. pulls out, with Nauka as the new backbone replacing Destiny, meanwhile keeping Zarya and Zvezda and the other Russian modules in their current roles. USOS modules could be used for storage, or if that’s not safe just seal them off, or ask the U.S. to deorbit them.
However even if they are considering this possibility, it would not be in their benefit to discuss it openly, since U.S. leadership of ISS is still open ended.
It’s hardly a secret that separating the ROS off of ISS is planned. http://www.russianspaceweb….
When I said that Russia has mentioned pulling their modules out I was referring to OPSEK, never said they are keeping that a secret. However there’s a big difference between saying that you are going to pull your modules out before the station is splashed, and saying that you are thinking about taking over ISS if no one else wants it. Even though technically that might be very nearly the same thing, there’s a big difference in how others will perceive it. Although Russian leaders are typically pretty blunt, they are also savvy, and they have no reason to talk publicly at this point about taking over ISS even if they are considering it, knowing that to do so would generate a lot of headlines and possible controversy. Whereas they can talk about OPSEK all day long and nobody pays any attention.
Putting nationalism issues aside, from a science perspective Russia taking over the station, or parts of it as you descibe, may be the best thing that could happen to it. It seems to me that certain US decision makers take pride in the ISS only when there’s a proposal to deorbit it. In between times the US spends enough to meet commitments and I think most politicians otherwise ignore it.
There’s another possibility — maybe the US will give its interests in the ISS to China as partial repayment for borrowed money. Wouldn’t Mr. Wolf love that!
Can I ask a technical question in case anyone who knows is reading… I realize it would require some pretty tough maneuvering, but if this module is FGB-2, why don’t they replace FGB-1 with it, since it is the oldest of Russian modules?
Nauka is not really replacing Pirs, since the two modules are quite different, it’s just taking Pirs soon to be vacated spot on the station. Pirs (2001) has essentially already been replaced by Poisk (2009) which provides nearly identical docking and airlock capability.
Meanwhile since Nauka is an FGB it can provide backup capability for Zarya, and it can also backup some of Zvezda’s functions, neither of which Pirs was capable of.