ISS Operations Extended To 2030
International Space Station Operations Formally Extended Through 2030
“NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced today the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to extend International Space Station (ISS) operations through 2030, and to work with our international partners in Europe (ESA, European Space Agency), Japan (JAXA, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), Canada (CSA, Canadian Space Agency), and Russia (State Space Corporation Roscosmos) to enable continuation of the groundbreaking research being conducted in this unique orbiting laboratory through the rest of this decade.”
But will the cracking Russian hub hold together that long?
The Russian side could have a big crack open in it at any time, I hope the Russian crew is ready to run for the International side at a moment’s notice. They may need to get over there and slam the hatch. I worked the Shuttle/Mir program when a Progress hit Spektr and cracked the hull – the crew was badly prepared to evacuate and seal off the Spektr or any other part.
In theory the entire Russian segment of the ISS could be replaced with a large shiny cylindrical “module” from the folks at South Texas.
It performs vital services to the station as a whole, like providing docking ports for Progress resupply craft which are responsible for the regular rebooting of the Station to keep it in orbit. It’s not just a can.
The ISS is already showing it’s age now. I can only imagine what it will look like in another decade. One could hope that private space stations would be a given by then…
2030 is about twice the design life of ISS. ITCS, seals, AR, fiber optic cables yellowing, mold, MCA, no spares on the US side and some known (and unpublished) issues on the Russian side will prove a challenge to reaching 2030. ISS was designed to last 15 years on orbit. Many of its subsystems are from the Freedom program and within a year or two of being 30 years old right now. 2030 seems a dangerous commitment and a drain on resources that can be used for new space stations. It would be better to select a decommissioning date now and use that to dive work to build replacement space stations.
NASA can buy lab space, rides for crew and time on orbit from commercial space station providers (and change little of the existing ground infrastructure in place today supporting ISS.) So can our international partners.
There’s more to it than just lab space on orbit. The element of international cooperation has been huge and it’s something we need to look to preserve going forward. Current tensions aside, the Russian government knows that they have been far more of an equal partner on ISS than they have any prospects of being as tenants on a Chinese station. We need to continue to nurture that relationship.
We don’t need to risk safety and sacrifice development of the next generation of stations to do so.
Agreed, but planning for the next round needs to go beyond buying services from US commercial space station operators. It’s important to have a meaningful multinational component to off-Earth stations.
Why on earth announce this news on new years eve?
Perhaps it’s because they view the audience not as the US, but as Russia. It’s Christmas here, but not there. With most things shut down for the holidays at our end, this message faced very little in the way of competing news out of the US, so will get more attention and play in Russia than it might otherwise receive.
I hope by 2030
-we can discard or add large sections to the ISS
-there are more space stations
-the Chinese are cooperating which would be good for international cooperation and give the Russians needed competition
Cooperation with the Chinese has been banned by Congress. Considering the domestic pressure on Roscosmos right now, I think that keeping them afloat is more in our interest than kicking them while they’re down.
No more labs in space? That is your hope? Man talk about short sighted.
It is my hope that the United State is NEVER AGAIN without a space station with labs in space.
Unless Congress gives Artemis a budget upper extension for ISS means less money for going further out. Shipwrecked in LEO for another 9 years.
Of course, there are probably no real parallels, but the B-52’s are lasting a lot longer than expected, and if they hadn’t been retired, the Iowa-class BB’s are seven decades old and still afloat at least. Besides, who knows what eight years will bring in space commercialization…
Ad Astra!
I am looking forward to seeing ISS try and meet some of its challenges in conducting useful science and being operated in a cost effective manner. I suspect ISS is NASA’s last manned ‘spacecraft’. If they can shine, something they have not done up til now, then maybe they will have a future chance.
I expect and hope that Mr. Musk and future investors will support lunar and Mars missions in a way in which we could never have expected the US Government or NASA to be able.
Orion, SLS and “Gateway” are so compromised in terms of capabilities and costs that they have now outlived their usefulness.
How do we pay for ISS, Gateway, and Artemis?
Numbers: The US these days has a 20 trillion dollar economy; most years the Federal government collects 4 to 5 trillion dollars in taxes and other revenue’ its expenditures run to about 6 trillion. (Granted, coping with Covid-19 and middle eastern wars muddies things up a bit). NASA’s budget is currently about 25 billion dollars per year; it’s been known to go up or down a billion or so depending on White House and Congressional enthusiasm.
25 billion vs 5 trillion. Think about the relative magnitudes.
Is there and end of life plan for ISS? Is it published? What are the risks? Or are end of life issues being kicked down the road for future administrations to deal with?
ISS end of life plan is up there with the Manned Mission to Mars plan – it’s to be written once they get around to it. Expect many revisions.