Reaction To Proposed OMB Space Station Funding Cuts
Statement by Sen. Bill Nelson Regarding Administration Space Station Plans
“If the Administration plans to abruptly pull us out of the International Space Station in 2025, they’re going to have a fight on their hands. Such a move would likely decimate Florida’s blossoming commercial space industry, which is one of the reasons why Congress directed NASA to look at extending the ISS to 2028 and to provide a plan to help scientists and researchers continue experimenting in low-Earth orbit beyond that.”
Statement from Robert Bigelow on reports of the International Space Station being defunded by 2025, Bigelow Aerospace
“It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. ISS operations should continue provided there are aggressive initiatives to use commercial platforms for human space operations in parallel with the continued use of the ISS until such time that NASA can safely relieve itself of the enormous financial burden.”
White House starts debate on when NASA should leave the space station, Ars Technica
“Without somewhere to operate and a predictable way of getting there, operations are not possible and expansion of American free enterprise in space is stifled,” the chief executive officer of Made in Space, Andrew Rush, testified in 2017. Companies like Made in Space, as well as Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada, Boeing, SpaceX, and other commercial service providers oppose an end to station support before 2028. However, the counter argument being advanced by Scott Pace, executive secretary of the National Space Council, is that at some point these “commercial” companies need to begin standing up on their own and making profits beyond just government contracts. “He doesn’t want them lining up for government programs like everyone else,” one aerospace industry source told Ars.”
Trump administration wants to end NASA funding for the International Space Station by 2025, The Verge
“… a NASA spokesperson said in a statement to The Verge. “We will not comment on any leaked or pre-decisional documents prior to the release of the President’s FY19 budget, which is scheduled for February 12.”
The core modules for ISS were launched in 1998-2000. Were they even designed to last that long?
That is what I am wondering. If I recall it originally was supposed to be disassembled and deorbited with the assistance of the space shuttle in 2015, so in some aspects it is pass it’s “best by date”. So it might well be a moot point if some part of what is a very complex system fails before then.
A good interim strategy would be for NASA to lease a BA330 and place it in the ISS orbit a 100 or so kilometers from it. It could be a safe shelter to retreat to when the ISS fails. Otherwise the astronauts would have to do an emergency return to Earth and it will takes weeks to return to the ISS and work the issue.
The best place for an emergency shelter is docked to the station. Even if disabled it’s not going to fall out of orbit except over a period of years.Most of the station modules can be refurbished down to the outer hull, so it just doesn’t seem likely to “wear out”. We have B52s still flying, ships still sailing and even some cars still driving that are much older than the ISS. Heck, I’m much older than the ISS. Am I obsolete? Don’t answer that.
“If the Administration plans to abruptly pull us out of the International Space Station in 2025”
only a politician could claim a decommissioning 8 years from now and 10 years past when originally planed is “abrupt”
My understanding from engineers at Boeing — ISS Prime Contractor — is that ISS is OK up to 2028ish.
The first module for the Russians was a part that was originally going to be a part of the Mir replacement station Mir-2. So there is some REALLY old hardware up there.
“The FGB design was originally intended as a module for the Russian Mir space station, but was not flown as of the end of the Mir program. A FGB cargo block was incorporated as an upper stage engine into the Polyus spacecraft, flown (unsuccessfully) on the first Energia launch.[3] With the end of the Mir program, the design was adapted to use for the International Space Station.
The Zarya module is capable of station keeping and provides sizable battery power; it was suggested to have initially been built to both power and control the recoil from a further derivation of the then classified Skif laser system/Polyus satellite. Commentators in the West thought that the Zarya module was constructed cheaper and lifted to orbit faster than what should have been possible in the post-Soviet era, and that the FGB might have been largely constructed from mothballed hardware from the Skif laser program (which had been canceled after the failed 1987 Polyus launch).[4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
I suspect the main message from the administration will be: you can have either ISS or SLS. Pick one. Of the two, I’d go for ISS.
Put Orion on Vulcan/ACES with refueling and New Glenn or New Armstrong. You would have dissimilar redundancy and much lower launch cost. Cancel SLS. Keep ISS until 2028 or longer if viable case exists. Problem solved.
Is there any technical reason why new modules can’t be hooked into the trusses and solar panel system? I can see how the pressurized modules might be reaching end-of-life but a lot of the structure is surely good for a long time to come.
Well I thought it was going to be Hillary making this decision it looks like trump will be making it. Bush gave the porkonauts CON stellation for commercial cargo. Obama gave them SLS for commercial crew. What will trump give them to get a commercial station?
Whar activities do you envision will occur on a ‘commercial station’?
Commercial research, government research, university research, commercial hardware testing government hardware testing, 3d printing testing and manufactering, tourism, astronomy, reality TV and education in conducting space experiements are some of the things off the top of my head.
How much of that list is actully happening now?
It’s an old point but still valid: there’s little research happening on ISS, and (apparantly) little commercial interest in using it for research.
There are good reasons for this, chifely being that humanity is still toiling with solving the problem of how to get to space in the first plce. Once resolved, and people will live in space, THEN research related into meeting the needs of space living people will be needed.
How many research labs does the human species have on the ground? Of the 7 BILLION minds scurrying around on the ground how many have been to the ISS? It is silly to think that a species that grows like a virus is going to stop on the ground.
“It’s an old point but still valid: there’s little research happening on ISS, “
How many commercial space facilities are there that do not have to play the jump through the NASA hoops game for access and retrieval of experiments.
We have needed the three legs of the stool to advance in space. Commercial cargo, commercial passenger services and commercial destination. All operating outside of Congressional/NASA constraints.
I look at capital flows and capital is increasingly moving to space. I have absolute faith in the numbers Bigelow is working off for demand of commercial services.
This is an old problem with fundamental research. There is no commercial interest because there no one has discovered potentially and sufficiently profitable application for work in space. Once it looks like it’s going somewhere, industry is willing to fund research and development to take an idea from a university (or government) lab and turn it into a profitable product. Without that potential on the horizon, funding from industry is rare.
That the case for anything involving a space station. But one of the arguments for government funded research is to take things to the point where companies see a potential and start funding applied research. Unfortunately, ISS hasn’t been able (or hasn’t been operated effectively) to do that.
Dr. C: Your point is age-old, and true. I didn’t intend to disparage fundamental research.
My point is this: where are the throngs of scientists, or companies, or anyone else? Are they banging on the door, clamoring for a spot on ISS? Where’s the demand? Hell, where are the space tourists? If there was a serious demand they’d find a way.
I press this point for one reason: to find clarity for space exploration. Many of us feel that presence in space is its own reward. Your own efforts are exactly that.
But it’s not enough for HSF, and so, many claim ‘research’ as a raison d’etre.
Without a reason to go we will not go and as far as I can see the rationale is damn thin.
And that is why HSF is floundering.