Keith’s note: NASA has asked companies to offer $1 billion ideas for how to dump the International Space Station into the Pacific. NASA seems to feel that it is not worth updating and they want to replace it with one or more commercial mini-space stations. But NASA may not have anywhere near the funds to do that for a while thus causing a gap in NASA’s human space flight access. Oh yes – and then there’s that Gateway mini-ISS that NASA wants to build out near the Moon for the constantly delayed and always over-budget Artemis Moon program. Congress is rather cool on dumping ISS – and much, much warmer on extending ISS. And if NASA gets cold feet on the future of humans in LEO – or the CLD money dries up – the various CLD commercial space station companies may have a hard time drumming up private sector funding – thus worsening the gap. We’ve already seen Northrop Grumman dropping their own independent CLD bid and merging with Voyager Space. But y’know: old things still work. And if you maintain them, they still will – and if you are smart, old things can get upgrades and keep working for less than replacing them. FWIW The USAF has flown B-52s since 1955. They still had 72 operational as of 2022. Upgrades were done in 2013-15. The last B-52s may well serve to 2050s i.e. 100 year old aircraft. Yet NASA struggles to extend the International Space Station to just one-third of that lifespan. Yes, this is an apples/oranges thing but we threw away Skylab – do you really want to splash the ISS NASA? Seriously.
Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member... More by Keith Cowing
Typical NASA.
Build a spaceship. Throw it away. Get more money. Build a new one.
We did that with Shuttle and see how well tnat turned out? They said Shuttle was too expensive. So they built a mini retro capsule, far less capable, underdesigned, and costing 4x what each Shuttle flight cost.
We did it with Apollo and Saturn. Havent had a replacement in 50 years.
Weve do e it with every program so far and weve seen. it evolve to a stagnant program we can no longer afford.
ISS is more like a NASA center, like JSC or KSC or MSFC. It was built to be multiple purpose, modular for updating, maintainable. It was built over decades. It was not built as a test for the next space station. Future stations like?y will not have the adaptability, capability, flexibility or size of this one.
There is no reason to throw this one awah. If there were serious issues, and there arent, then tne failing compone ts could be replaced.
Its not that so far the ISS has been used for anythi g to astounding. It hasnt. No real significant discoveries so far. But as time goes on and access becomes more affordable, may esomething new can be tried. If you do not ha e ISS then everhthing becomes more difficult and expensive.
If I were NASA I would trim ISS costs to the max so more could be spent on R&D.
But throw ISS away after spending billions for the capability? In favor of something new and better?; thats unlikely. Not a chance.
ISS,keep it flying.
(Let me preface this by saying I worked on some ISS and Shuttle hardware systems during a long career as a contractor at JSC.)
There is no way currently available to get new modules to ISS, so the modular nature of the ISS is kinda moot. In addition, there is no way to get full size racks up there – the hatch on the Cygnus was too small, Dragon 1 doesn’t have a way to secure them in the capsule, and they are too large for Dragon 2 capsules. The ISS was designed to be serviced and upgraded using the Shuttle, and we don’t have a full replacement.
I’m not sure that the cost of ISS on an ongoing basis is justified by the research done there. The most important ISS module for long term space exploration, the centrifuge, was vetoed because of concerns that it would disrupt microgravity experiments. I know that our host here was a champion of the centrifuge.
Your logic is faulty. You do not think there is a way to get a new module to ISS. But you do think there is a way to get a new module to build a new space station?
Where did I say anything about new space stations?
While it doesn’t challenge the validity of your point, accurately speaking B-52 airframes currently flying are B-52H models which went into service during 1961-62.
I do wonder if spaceflight…especially Earth-orbital flight with its thermal cycling, atmosphere & debris & radiation environments, and near-non-stop running of so many starkly essential systems…is seriously more wearing & tearing than periodic atmospheric flight interspersed with sitting on the ground. Planes have access to hangers; it would be crazy to do mechanical overhauls and large equipment changeouts while an aircraft is in flight or a train is rolling down the rails or a car is driving on the road, but that’s precisely (as already demonstrated) what is required to maintain an orbiting space station over decades. I wonder how much of the original ISS would actually be up there if we were to keep it flying through 2060. Weren’t the original specs for 30 years?
Will there be a point in time when practical maintenance overhead would be so difficult and/or expensive that it would preclude keeping the lights on? How exactly would one determine such a no-go tipping point, and how much would it cost to determine it? One can speculate that such an assessment effort would be small change compared to potential gain, but the govt seems to possess a fairly consistent way of turning small-expense tasks into big-expense tasks.
How much would it cost to determine if it would be worth it to determine if it would be worth it?
Based on past work I did with ISS, my suspicion is that much of the hardware in the ISS is nearing end of life. I have seen references to increased crew time spent on maintenance. Your comment on thermal cycling is apt – there could be multiple systems that are degrading due to that.
I cannot imagine that thermal cycling, especially on the interior pressure shells which are mainttained at a relatively constant ‘normal’ temperature, would impose serious stresses. By comparison, airplane airframes.go through tens or even hundreds of thousands of serious pressure cycles. HTV provides rack capability. It would be a far lesser cost to modify the current suite of logistics carriers to carry larger cargo, or even to build a new vehicle, than to replace ISS. In fact one such vehicle is already in development: StarShip. You are rijght about one thing: current ISS operating cost is ridiculous. The cost and difficulty of getting payloads on ISS is too great and this has been a tremendous hindrance to getting new ideas onboard. NASA was trying to nurture new ideas up until about the time ISS became operational. NASA diverted money to pay Boeing exorbitant fees. q1