This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

NASA Quietly Submits ISS Transition Plan To Congress (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 16, 2018
Filed under
NASA Quietly Submits ISS Transition Plan To Congress (Update)

Keith’s update: NASA quietly posted the International Space Station Transition Report pursuant to Section 303(c)(2) of the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-10) a few days ago.
“This report responds to direction in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-10, hereafter “the Act”), Section 303(c)(1), to submit to Congress a report evaluating the International Space Station (ISS) as a platform for research, deep space exploration, and low-Earth orbit (LEO) spaceflight in partnership with its four foreign space agency partners, and the commercial space sector (see Appendix for text of the reporting requirement, excerpted from the Act).”
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Markup NASA Authorization Act of 2018
“TUESDAY, April 17, at 10 a.m. EDT, the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will meet to consider the following legislation: H.R. 5503, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2018, introduced today by Rep. Brian Babin (R- Texas). The legislation authorizes the programs of NASA for fiscal years 2018 and 2019.”
Keith’s 13 April note: According to this text of HR 5503 the ISS Transition Report has been submitted to Congress. So when will NASA release it to the public?
Sec. 202. ISS Transition (a) Findings
“(4) The ISS transition report, submitted pursuant to section 50111(c)(2) of title 51, United States Code, provides an explanation of NASA’s plans to foster the development of private industry capabilities and private demand with a goal of ending direct NASA support for ISS operations by the end of fiscal year 2024.
(5) The plans laid out in the ISS transition report are conditionally flexible and require feedback to inform next steps. In addition, the feasibility of ending direct NASA support for ISS operations by the end of fiscal year 2024 is dependent on many factors, some of which are indeterminate until the Administration carries out the initial phases of the ISS transition plan.”

What About That Space Station Transition Plan NASA?, earlier post
Did NASA Deliver The ISS Transition Plan To Congress Required By Law? Update: No, earlier post
Is NASA Going To Break The Law By Not Delivering An ISS Transition Plan To Congress?, earlier post
Senators Blast NASA and OMB Over Future Of ISS, earlier post
Is Privatizing ISS A Smart Thing To Do?, earlier post
White House Plan To Defund ISS By 2025 Moves Ahead, earlier post
Reaction To Proposed OMB Space Station Funding Cuts, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

51 responses to “NASA Quietly Submits ISS Transition Plan To Congress (Update)”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Questions, questions, always questions, on this fine Saturday morning in Naples, Florida:

    1. If it’s submitted to Congress, and unless it’s Secret (well, who knows?), isn’t it public info?

    2. Keith calls this submittal “Quiet”. Would another word be “routine”?

    3. What would characterize a “non-quiet” submittal?

    That is all.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      NASA has been asked by many people when this report was going to be submitted. They submitted it and did not tell anyone ergo “quiet”.

  2. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    “In addition, the feasibility of ending direct NASA support for ISS operations by the end of fiscal year 2024 is dependent on many factors, some of which are indeterminate until the Administration carries out the initial phases of the ISS transition plan.”

    Does this mean NASA funding can continue through payments to the “commercial operator” for experiment operation? Will the commercial operator function under continued US participation at the program level? In this case, SpaceX or Boeing could simply manage the operational functions previously managed by NASA under LEO commercialization funding.

    but what about Earth and space observation, including the AMS? Would these fit under commercialization of LEO even if the government was the customer?

  3. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    If it is meant to be real than this might be the end of NASA’s human space flight program. Orion/SLS is not yet a real and viable program. They have 2 capsules in development and no more service modules in the plan, and ESA has said they really are not interested in another ATV kind of an agreement where they just keep building the same thing over and over; there is nothing to gain from it. Besides, there is no plan or strategy for Orion. So if NASA and Congress lets ISS die, then there may very well be nothing to replace it.

    Good luck Space X, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

    A lot of the ISS people have been there since the beginning, 1993. Most probably have no experience beyond ISS, which is pretty frightening as far as ability to do anything ‘real’, so maybe the workforce can get out with 30 years.

    • rb1957 says:
      0
      0

      “ESA has said they really are not interested in another ATV kind of an agreement where they just keep building the same thing over and over; there is nothing to gain from it.” … and so the difference between a science based enterprise and a commercial one. A commercial enterprise would love to “keep making the same thing” … that’s how you recoup NRE costs (unless these are paid up front). ESA should IMHO be smart enough to see that making more ATVs will produce profits for them.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        ESA is not a commercial operation. They got into the business of building the Orion Service Module because they’d built enough ATVs and did not want to build more. Now they’ve built the similar SM and would like to go beyond this . ESA is trying to develop European aerospace capabilities and they’ve done a good job. Unlike NASA, which sees itself as “the Operations Organization”, I guess NASA sees itself as sort of the USAF but of the civilian space program. The whole idea is a farce, since they have no air force or space force. The most they ever had were 3 Shuttles flying 5 or 6 missions a year and for that they needed pretty close to a $billion a mission. It never got any less expensive-in fact just the opposite, their price kept going up and they kept doing less with more money and they all wondered why no one would double their budget.

  4. DougSpace says:
    0
    0

    ISS has been a major burden on NASA’s budget and will continue to be so until 2024. Will we get our money’s worth from it when thasame amount of money could’ve develop a XEUS-ACES lunar lander and much more.

    Then there are the many indicators that any commercial follow-on will not be profitable but will continue to require NASA support. For example, when the CEO of Made in Space testifies before Congress, he stated that it would be very difficult for his company to make a profit of they had to pay the going price for transportstion to any station. A NASA report said something similar. At one point we need to actually to back to the Moon.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Doug, and Nick:

      Couldn’t your point of view on this be a little parochial? What I mean is this: while the cost of construction and maintenance of ISS was and remains huge, a primary benefit of ISS has little to do with the actual activities performed there. Sure, there are many other ‘soft’ reasons to have ISS: national prestige, toehold in space, yada yada.

      But ISS provides SX, and others, a *destination*. An outpost with support needs that can be performed by private companies. This is huge.

      And perhaps you think the government shouldn’t be involved. To me ISS is a perfect example of helping private companies develop new tech. In the egregiously most expensive way, possibly; but still.

      • DougSpace says:
        0
        0

        NASA did very well to organize COTS, Commercial Cargo, & Commercial Crew and yes, the ISS has served as a useful destination. But we are now looking beyond LEO? Couldn’t we purchase their transportation services to go elsewhere or can it only be for the ISS? On my website SpaceDevelopment.org, I envision using FH to go either to the Moon or EML1. Zubrin has a proposed lunar return architecture that could use anyone’s capsule and transfer crew at LEO into a Lunar Excursion Vehicle. So, once again, are we getting our money’s worth for the ISS? We all agree that it is”egregiously” expensive. So, how about a set of Lunar COTS programs?

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Who is “we”?

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            We the people through our elected representatives. I’m talking about a set of public-private partnerships. Lunar COTS would be a repeat of the current, large public-private programs.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            I am not in that “we” though the way you state it… SpaceX does not want to waste dollars on human rating the falcon heavy, So a lot of the premises I do agree with (although in general we are almost always on the same page)

            To me it sounds like telling ford after they introduce the model A and are going to discontinue the Model T you tell them no we want to stay with the model T ..

            SpaceX is looking past the falcon heavy as a human transport . so lets also move our expectations and plans past it .. and only use it in a cargo capacity.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            To me it sounds like telling ford after they introduce the model A and are going to discontinue the Model T you tell them no we want to stay with the model T ..

            You can design payloads to be mostly launcher agnostic, but scaled in the FH/NG/Vulcan range. They would also drop easily into BFS if it turns out to be a thing.

            However, you do make a good point. With the commercial sector in such a wave of development, it’s mad for NASA to be expected to plan mission architecture for the next 20 years. (Let alone developing launchers that compete directly against those commercial launchers.)

            [It’s a bit like that image of BFS docked with ISS. The scale difference makes current plans seem ridiculous.]

            Common sense would be to put a 5-10 year moratorium on NASA “goals” in order to let the market sort itself out, and while waiting, instead focus the agency on enabling technologies for future commercial players. Future technologies. Using those experiments along with science missions to throw modest to large payloads to those commercial launchers.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        Doc Spencer; Yes, there are plenty of reasons for an ISS. Reagan approved it because he felt it was the foothold for establishing commerce in space. Clinton kept it going because of the importance of international diplomacy. Mueller, Low, Paine, Von Braun and others felt it was the initial foothold in low Earth orbit on which all other things would be built-way stations to the Moon and planets, human research to ensure humans could travel ion weightlessness for long duration missions, fuel depots, assembly places for future spacecraft….and the entire thing was design ed to completely modular so that it could be maintained in orbit indefinitely. So to me the entire idea that NASA would abandon it for a flags and footprints mission to the Moon or planets is a lot of nonsense, but entirely in keeping with how NASA had operated for fifty years; building programs and spaceships just to shut them down and start over. NASA big mistake on ISS, as it was on Shuttle, was not improving on it, not making it more efficient and less expensive to operate. But no doubt they’d love nothing more than to be done with it and start over with something else.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          it was the initial foothold in low Earth orbit on which all other things would be built-way stations to the Moon and planets, human research to ensure humans could travel ion weightlessness for long duration missions, fuel depots, assembly places for future spacecraft….

          Except if didn’t, can’t and isn’t allowed to do any of those things except limited long duration weightless studies.

          Making it a failure by its own criteria.

          (Not defending Flags’n’Footprints. Just pointing out that ISS is an awful space-station.)

    • NArmstrong says:
      0
      0

      I guess you have posed THE question. Why do you think NASA has a role in sending astronauts to the Moon, yet you seem not to think that NASA should have a role in doing research in Earth orbit? For some reason when ISS was started, NASA and the President felt NASA should have a role in scientific research and commerce in Earth orbit. Then NASA apparently got bored, and decided they wanted to turn research and commerce over to others. I can tell you, during Apollo, NASA, the President and the American people all got bored with the Moon after Apollo 11. Why do you or anyone else think things would be different this time?

      • DougSpace says:
        0
        0

        I think that it could be different this time around. Apollo had what? 11 test pilots picking up rocks. OK. So they drove rovers, hit golf balls, and a few more things. Cool. But after the first two or three times doing the same thing, sure, the public got bored.

        But check out SpaceDevelopment.org and tell me if there’s not a whole lot more involved there. The first woman on the Moon, the first dog, the first couple, growing food, celebrating Thanksgiving, a small string quartet, speaking to 70% of the world in their language, dancing in 1/6th gravity and much more. Astronauts from practically every nation getting the opportunity to conduct their own Apollo program. The first puppy born off Earth. The first lunar tourist, celebrity, settlers. The artificial gravity Rx worked out, then the first human child born off Earth.

        Different the next time. Could be, if we do it right!

        • NArmstrong says:
          0
          0

          It wasn’t after 2 or 3 times that people got bored with the Apollo Moon landings, it was after the first time. Few watched Apollo 12 and if you remember on Apollo 13 (watch the movie) no one was watching the astronauts’ TV show-it didn’t get exciting until people thought the astronauts might die and even then there were lots of complaints that the standard TV shows were being preempted by news of the Apollo explosion. Most of what you describe to be the sorts of things people might pay attention to on the next Moon program are the kinds of things that NASA has tried to do repeatedly on Shuttle and Station, and few people really care or pay attention and in the long run these sorts of things really don’t matter. Quite honestly, if you think that what matters is the publicity and people paying attention to the astronauts’ then you’ve missed the entire point; as has NASA and a lot of its supporters. The achievements and the public support ought to have very little to do with the PR campaign if the goal and milestones and achievements are worthwhile, especially 60 years into the program. If its not economically supportable and sustainable, then the program is just about useless.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            You can not even begin to compare American reality TV to what NASA does. Reality TV in space will be a hell of lot more creative and drama filled than anything NASA tries.

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            In my scenario, media companies would produce programming which would allow the public to follow developments. A great deal of creative work could be applied to develop a lot of interesting vignettes that would take advantage of the unique circumstances involved in the development and execution of the various phases of the program. From crew selection & training, to hardware development & testing, to the arrival of the initial long-term crew, to their progress and life on the Moon, to the arrival and experiences of the international astronauts, to private individuals moving to the Moon, to the repeat of the same on Mars. Creative media types could figure out a lot of unique interesting scenarios which would delight and inform the public.

            I would prefer that the media companies collaborate with NASA but that the programming be largely privately-run and that revenue from the media rights would go towards supporting operations of the participating companies and a portion of the profits being used to pay back NASA public-private investment. The pay-per-view VR experiences of these historic events could, in and of itself, go a long way to repaying that investment.

            http://spacedevelopment.org

            http://spacedevelopment.org

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            While I want to agree with you – and I do, to the extent that the creative types could do a lot with the available material.

            On the other hand as a person who has watched hundreds of hours of ISS live feed (most in a small window while actually working), the stuff that astronauts do has a very high Index of Tediosity.*

            *Yes. That’s a word. I checked 🙂

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            I hope to eventually work with the School of Theater, Film, & TV to see what they could envision with the setting of the Moon-Mars Analogue Base (MMAB) & a mock crew of four couples. I have sketched out a year’s worth of a TV series highlighting the first year of a permanent crew on the moon and, trust me, NASA TV wouldn’t be allowed to produce that!

            I have also met with a professor at their School of Dance re: how dance in 1/6 gee could be simulated. I also hope to conduct a set of dance experiments with a dance-space advocate to work within one of the indoor skydiving places to see what new maneuvers is possible when 5/6th of the weight is suspended. Here’s a video of zero-gee dance at my local indoor skydiving place — (not exactly NASA TV).

            https://m.youtube.com/watch

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            in my scenario the brave UFO Hunters pan to a window as the host shouts “what was that?” and the astronaut says “that was some frozen pee from a space shuttle launch 10 years ago.” with that the brave host says tune in next week as UFO Hunters unlock the mystery of alien visits..

            Or .. will kim kardashian let Kenya sing on the space station ? tune in next week..

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            Dear Mr. Vladislaw,

            Thank you for your application to be the Director of the TV Series, “Live From Lunar Base One”. Unfortunately, due to the large number of applicants, we are unable to consider all applications. We therefore regret to inform you that your application will not be proceeding to the next level of the selection process. However, there are many other areas where your enthusiastic expertise could be utilized. Perhaps you might consider applying for the Environmental Engineering Specialist position in our Animal Care program.

            Again, your very entertaining submission was much appreciated.

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            I don’t view the excitement of crew doing things as the primary purpose of a space program. Rather, that is a side benefit which is good and should be sought as a value-added thing.

            Rather, if one can dramatically reduce the cost of transporting cargo and crew to the Moon (as SpaceDevelopment.org illustrates how) then multiple uses support the rationale on a cost-benefit basis. For example, if most nations could afford to pay to send at least one of their national astronauts to the Moon, then this serves not only the profit-making rationale of the participating companies but also the national prestige objectives (what HSF has always been about) of the United States by it leading in space while doing so with our emphasis on commercial markets.

            NASA hasn’t established humanity’s first permanent off/Earth foothold on the ISS. It has not (knowingly) sent husbands and wives (i.e. families) to settle down off Earth for extended stays. It has not made a serious attempt at determining the artificial gravity Rx for healthy gestation and childhood. By facilitating American companies to do this on the Moon, NASA would be go beyond science-exploration mode into development and supporting settlement mode. It would be fundamentally different than what we’ve done before.

            I hope to illustrate how different and interesting development and settlement is compared to science exploration by illustrating this at a new Moon-Mars Analogue Base (MMAB) by Tucson.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You should be basing your plan on the BFR.

            SpaceX has already relegated the Falcon Heavy to the past. They will use if for near term customers, just as with the Falcon 9, but they rapidly moving on.

            Besides it will be a lot easier closing your business model on costs of around $100/lb to the lunar surface than the $3,000/lb for the Falcon Heavy. And being able to land 150 tons at a time rather than a ton or two changes everything…

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Thank you. Yes.

            But it’s much, much more than that: BFR can be a lot like a Winnebago. Instead of pulling into a parking spot at Walmart, you land you crew capsule on Luna – and it stays there, large enough to serve as an initial part of the permanent presence.

            And, if you don’t like the parking spot, you just move. This is a completely different way of thinking.

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            If Crew Mission #2 had the first woman on the Moon, I don’t think that the world public including the 800 million school-aged girls worldwide would yawn and ignore it. If Crew Mission #3 brought together the first couples (with the first off-Earth kiss) I don’t think that the public would yawn like they did with Apollo 12 whose crew was little different in makeup or function as Apollo 11. And if Crew Mission #4 had the first dog in its space suit running free on the Moon, would the kids (of all ages) yawn at that?

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          You have the falcon heavy listed … SpaceX said that will not be human rated .. does your plan call for that to happen?

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            Yes it does. But I have been favorably influenced by Zubrin’s Moon Direct architecture which only requires the F9 to get crew to LEO where they transfer to a Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV). Vehicles and cargo could be launched on an FH not requiring human-rating. I think that there’s also a safety benefit on launching crew on only 10 engines and one staging instead of 28 engines and three stagings.

            Having said that, I view the human-rating of the FH much like the cross-feed of the FH. Both were previously announced bubble Elon and both are doable if a “customer” requires it. I believe that NASA should hedge its bets by creating a very cost-effective transportation system to the Moon by funding SpaceX (in a competitive Lunar COTS setting) to develop part of the system. Show companies enough money and we can get them to develop what we want independent of what they would or wouldn’t develop without that funding. e.g. ULA plans to develop their ACES lander after their Vulcan launcher. I’d like to see that order switched by their winning a contract to develop the lander immediately. We need a lander more than we need yet another launcher.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think SpaceX (or Mr. Musk) has said Falcon Heavy will not be man-rated. They’ve said they aren’t going to pay for the necessary work, and implied they wouldn’t want that work getting in the way of BFR development. But if a customer wanted a man-rated Falcon Heavy, and wrote a sufficiently large check, I suspect SpaceX would make it happen.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Yes I agree, but in doug’s presentation I do not see where someone is writing that big check to spacex to human rate it .. he just kind of accepts it as a given..

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            Here is a quote from the official SpaceX website re: Falcon Heavy:

            http://www.spacex.com/falco

            “Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars”.

            If NASA were to pay to have the FH human-rated, after the F9 Block 5 was human-rated, I don’t think that it would take much more to human-rate the FH. It seems unlikely that SpaceX would leave good money on the table and refuse to human-rate the FH if NASA wanted to pay for that. The development of the BFR will take a lot of money and I’m sure that SpaceX would appreciate getting more money to support their attempt to get a workable BFR (BFB-BFS). In the meanwhile, NASA and this Administration gets crew access to the Moon and perhaps does a flyby of Mars. And if the BFR becomes workable then all the better — we can gladly transition to that.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            I understand that doug but where in your presentation are you accounting for the funding to human rate it .. when I read your work it appears to assume it already is human rated .. where do you account for BOTH the funding to get that done and the timeline for when it gets done. For me it would seem, it may take a year or better for these certification ..

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            On my front page at SpaceDevelopment.org it says:

            “We can establish a cost-effective transportation between the Earth and Moon using public-private programs”.

            This is referring to a set of “Lunar COTS” programs very much like the current public-private programs. In the later there is Commercial Crew so the lunar version would be Lunar Commercial Crew. So the funding approach would be the same and within 5% of NASA’s budget. By the time that we reach that point, the F9 Block 5 will have completed its in-flight abort and be human-rated and the FH will have flown a number of times. So human-rating the FH seems in my mind quite doable. But again, there is the intriguing Zubrin approach which wouldn’t require human-rating the FH.

            As for the timeline, I have taken the timeline of COTS, Commercial Cargo, & Commercial Crew and created the lunar version of it. However, given the foundation of the current PPPs, the availability of the FH, and the XEUS being based upon the existing Centaur, I would anticipate that the Lunar COTS timeline could be considerably shortened.

            Have I answered your question?

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Yes you have .. and as I said .. we are usually on the same page. I would have supported a lunar COTS under the VSE… but at this point in time .. it looks as if it is just beating a dead horse. Mars appears to be the prize and Luna is not going to get that funding.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, SpaceX might well walk away from a contract to man-rate the Falcon Heavy. They want to take it out of production (after building a stockpile of reusable core and boosters) in order to devote resources to BFR work. If a customer who wanted a man-rated Falcon Heavy also insisted on a long-term contract for a sizable number of flights, that might be a problem. If it would derail their plans to shift over to BFR, I could see SpaceX passing on the contract.

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            I’m fine with NASA using stockpiled, reusable FHs. If they haven’t achieved reusability of the upperstage by then then they may keep that production line going until it is not longer needed. Again, Elon has explicitly stated that they will continue the Falcon line for as long as customers demand it. I would antipate that customers will stop demanding it when a better alternative such as a working BFR becomes available. As for human-rating the FH I would only repeat what I have written before. Show them the money and see what happens. Let’s beat in mind that BFR development doesn’t come cheap. They could always use more money.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I was thinking of customer requirements which interfered with BFR development. What if, hypothetically, NASA said they wanted a man-rated Falcon Heavy, but part of that certification required all-new vehicles not reused ones (and required some minimum number of them.) If, hypothetically, that was what the customer wanted, SpaceX would have to keep the Falcon production line open. Would they opt to do that (with the impact it would have on BFR development) or opt not to take the contract? I’m not saying NASA (or another customer) would insist on exactly those terms, but they would probably insist on something. So the decision would be based on more than just the money.

          • DougSpace says:
            0
            0

            Can you remember that Elon stated that SpaceX would continue producing the Falcon family of rockets as long as customers required it? I specifically recall him saying that, do you? He made no equivocation as to whether the Falcons would be new or reused. Rather than assume that he would shut down Falcon production before customers required it, I think that we should take him at his word. When NASA has paid SpaceX, SpaceX has never just decided to terminate that contract. I see no reason to think that the future will be any different if NASA were to contract for a set of FH launches with an option for more.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      NASA has no clue as to “WHY” we should send humans to the moon or anywhere else. Selling “science” like they do is insufficient and misleading to an ever naive and uneducated American public (as 80 of our school systems are below acceptable education standards).

      • DougSpace says:
        0
        0

        If we greatly reduce the cost of sending crew and cargo to the Moon then it makes it much easier to make the cost-benefit case for any number of rationales. The analogy has been the rationale for people flying airlines. Because plane tickets are quite affordable, we don’t need to wring our hands trying to determine the one true rationale for air flight. If people want to fly for work, vacation, business, whatever, that’s fine. But until recently, spaceflight has cost so much that we struggle with the question of whether it is worth it or not. But SpaceX is getting us closer to justifying multiple rationales.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The space shuttle was more of a burden cost wise..

  5. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Maybe this transition plan will help examine things like why we have ISS, what can be done to make it less expensive, can companies operate it cheaper or build a replacement station that would have lower operating costs.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      On what planet?

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      Asking the question “WHY” is the most important and has not been done in our space program to any satisfactory extent. NASA keeps trying to sell the public and government bosses these magical boxes of “science” as if that will ever elicit or spur any headway in human space exploration or advancement. And this is exactly why we have been burning holes in LEO for 50 years.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Why only matters when the government is doing it.

        Free Enterprise space programs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Robert Bigelow don’t need to waste time on the why part or sell the public on it. But since they are also using their own money they will manage it wisely, which is why none of them will take over the NASA money pit known as the ISS.

  6. Mike Oliver says:
    0
    0

    Does anyone have a feeling for the viability of the space station after 2024? Scott Kelly mentioned he was surprised at increase in pitting over the course of several years in his book Endurance due to micro meteorite damage.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      Its all about money, money, money and proof that anyone in the government really cares. I haven’t seen either over my past 24 years in the industry. ISS could have older modules replaced with newer ones based on what we have learned over the years but NASA does not do a model b or 2.0 of anything but software. The future of human space flight from this country looks bleaker all the time.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        Go bug Congress, not NASA.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Donald Barker wrote: “The future of human space flight from this country looks bleaker all the time.”

        You mean with America having multiple commercial cargo service providers with two more coming online with BO and SNC also the only Nation on the planet that will have multiple commercial passenger services to LEO along with soon to launch commercial destinations in LEO with commercial space station facilities?