Blog

Kiss of death for International Space Station?

Posted 08-03-2009 by Bill Andrews

International Space StationLike many recently, I was pretty surprised to learn official plans call for the deorbiting and destruction of the International Space Station (ISS) in 2015. The international team won’t even be done building the thing until 2011! What gives?

I’d thought things were going well for it, what with the crew doubling from three to six in May and the installation of the Japanese “space porch” a few weeks ago. But unfortunately the ISS has funds for only a few more years. For it to stay in orbit (let alone remain operational) would require immediate fundraising. And in the midst of a recession, paying to keep an aging space station might not be the highest priority.

Most of the countries involved — Russia, Japan, Canada, the 10 member countries of the European Space Agency, and the United States — want to keep the ISS going. Plus, the 2015 end date is the original one, so it doesn’t take into account any delays. In order to do everything the ISS set out to do, that date would have to be pushed back a few years. But whether wanting to complete everything on the ISS’s to-do list actually translates into real money, we have yet to see.

Apparently, there’s also the minor wrinkle that Russia has said it’s going to keep using the station no matter what the United States decides. NASA thinks that’s not technically possible, but former station commander Leroy Chiao cautioned Discovery News, “They’re pretty clever and we should not underestimate their ability to do something like that.” It’s pretty amusing to think that, even in such a post-modern world, something like willfully taking over a space station can be so seriously discussed. Sounds like a job for 007.

Either way, I bet I’m not the only one a little curious about the fate of the biggest space station in the galaxy (as far as we know). I wasn’t exactly the ISS’s biggest fan, but it seems supremely silly to me that we’d let an investment some estimates put at over $100 billion just fall into the ocean. Of course, this is a silly world sometimes, so who knows what’ll happen.

What do you think? Should the ISS get an extension? Or is it high time we put the ISS to rest, and maybe use it in the next James Bond movie?

Photo credit: ESA

Comments



To comment on the blog, you must be registered and logged into Astronomy.com. To register, click here.
  • dpruett said:

    The projected de-orbit date of 2015 is a budget statement. There is no current NASA budget past 2015 for maintaining the ISS. Since the US budget is a, usually, 5 year plan, that is not surprising.

    That Russia could continue flying the space station (note I did not use ISS) is no big issue. They have the capability maintain their section (FGB, SM, etc) on orbit as long as they wish. They can just wave the US, Europe and Japan good by as we disconnect at the Node1-FGB interface. The biggest problem they would have is supplying the fuel to maintain orbital attitude - that is primarily done using the US Control Moment Gyros (CMGs) without thruster assist. They have none so would need thrusters. Their Proton vehicle will have more space available to bring up propellent since there is less need for water, food, oxygen, CO2 scrubbers etc. All in all, very doable.

    August 3, 2009 4:59 PM
  • MetalDrummer1991 said:

    Wow!

    Firstly, I think the space station was a blunder, not so much in concept, but in practice. International effort and everything is great, but it is somewhat of a momentum killer. Shuttle lift offs have almost become routine to the general public. Even though I belive it was a mistake, that does not mean it should be allowed to go to waste. It seems very silly to let something that expensive simply die. We have put this money into it, lets get all we can out of it! Would you make all your car payments save one, then decide you don't want it anymore? Just my two cents

    August 3, 2009 9:51 PM
  • kamaji said:

    Perhaps if we reach the point where we are saying, "The work being done on the ISS is so important, we simply must continue to fund it." then we should try to keep it going. If however the best we can argue is that we've spent so much on it that we have to keep spending more, then perhaps it's time to shut it down, learn from the experience, and move on.

    August 4, 2009 7:11 AM
  • Bill Andrews said:

    When you put it like that, dpruett, it does sound very doable, sure, but no less Bondian  (to my mind at least).  Still, you're right, it wouldn't actually be a huge deal if the Russians kept their section going.  

    Whether or not we should actually want to keep the ISS up I guess is difficult to say.  I like the car payment analogy, though if the thing's a lemon would it make sense to complete the payments?  I'd like to think the ISS isn't a lemon, that we might as well get something for our all our money and work, but that might just be my optimism talking.  

    August 4, 2009 9:57 AM
  • Antitax said:

    How come no one seems  to be able to name the exact, practical job the ISS is doing? It looks like they spend more time, money and effort building it than getting results from it. Close to my hometown, there is a larger city which hosts the supposedly glamourous and respectable buildings of the justice administration. In front of them, lies a wide townsquare that has been demolished and rebuilt in various ways about twenty times in thirty years.

    The purpose of this neverending work was not to accomplish any town planning but only to allow profits for the businesses in charge of the useless work, and kickbacks for their friends in the budget bureau. All this in front of the judicial agents that are supposed to crack down on such crime. At some point, they stopped wasting public money there and went elsewhere to waste it. Is the ISS the same money funnel?

    (The corrupt city is Liège in Belgium, in case you wonder).

    August 4, 2009 11:06 AM
  • Bill Andrews said:

    Well, apart from serving as a setting in which to study the human body's reaction to weightlessness and long-term space exposure, it's a research station.  The exact job it's doing is providing a setting for science experiments that can't happen on earth's surface.  

    Whether it's worth it to provide that setting is definitely up for debate, but I don't think anyone really argues the ISS is good for nothing.

    August 4, 2009 1:47 PM
  • Antitax said:

    Okay, I knew the ISS is a platform for studying the effects of weightlessness on living creatures, but hasn't this been done in previous long-term orbital missions? Is there still much to discover about this? Is it worth the cost? Does it take such a gigantic structure to perform these experiments? Several countries have their own modules, but couldn't they use the same one and simply bring each country's gear inside of it when needed?

    The Apollo program met a dead end because it was largely motivated by politics. If building the ISS is more political than scientifical, as it seems to be the case, isn't that the reason why they propose to scrap it prematurely? Officials claimed that assembling a common space station would bring the involved countries' populations together, but I see no hint of that. I'm not saying that the ISS is useless per se (I was only ranting when I said we don't see its usefulness), but is it not misused  and wasteful because politics prevailed over practicality?

    If only scientists, engineers and neutral accountants were in charge of it, how would it be like and what would it do? And what would the remainder of the space program be like? Politicians are untrustworthy and conspiratorial by nature; I would never let them dictate humanity's future in space.

    August 5, 2009 6:34 AM
  • Bill Andrews said:

    Ah, it would indeed be great if science could be practiced completely devoid of politics, but I don't know how likely that is.  The politicians remain in charge of funding and priorities, but we put them there (at least in the United States) so at least we can do something if we don't like their actions.  

    As to the practicality of the ISS, I'm not really the an expert on the subject, but think think it was basically okay.  There may be more efficient ways of doing these experiments, but (as we so often hear these days) we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  It's definitely a tough call, though, and I'm afraid I have no solid answers.  

    August 5, 2009 12:00 PM
  • Crazybob @ SETI.USA said:

    I don't think the ISS was a mistake.  There is a need for an orbiting platform to do experimentation.  If ot is allowed to de-orbit, then in a few years, plans would be drawn up for the next one.  I say lets make use of what we have.  If for nothing else, then a life boat for other space flights.  A jumping off place to the solar system or if decided that the cost of upkeep is too great, then an experiment in the risks of space flight.  Boost the orbit to a point where Earth's atmosphere doesn't protect it at all from radiation or the occassional micr-meteorite and learn about the risks from up close experience.  IMO

    August 7, 2009 8:40 AM
  • Rick D said:

    Have we learned everything we can? Though I'm certianly not qualified to say, probably not. It will be the politicians (and as mentioned, we put them there) who will make the decisions on ROI which will ultimately determine fate of the ISS.  When the Russians arer determined they have accomplished a great deal. Look at how long they kept MIR alive, well past it's projected life. There's no reason they couldn't do the same thing with the ISS AND we could look at it as a business opportunnity! They probably will and if it transpires, there will probably be more "guest" crew members.  

    I say keep it going as long as possible. There will be competition for funds for going back to the moon and at some point the umbilical will need to be cut.  That's the message I'll send to my representatives.

    Rick

    August 7, 2009 10:11 AM
  • valta said:

    I don't think that man belongs in space.  It costs us well over a billion per to send these guys up there and to the moon.

    We have already lost too many lives for these boondoggles.

    It only gets more costly to go to Mars.  For what?  Surviving away from Earth?  Colonizing space?  Phewy!

    Hubble, for all its glitches, has paid off handsomely in cosmo-

    logical insights.  So scopes and robots  'ueber alles' and put the savings to work to cherish Mother Earth, the only space-

    ship that will ever sustain us all.  We could turn Death Valley

    into paradise for the difference.  Keep the energy for orbiting here for mundane things.  Let ISS, not our planet, crash!

    August 7, 2009 1:33 PM
  • Ziggy165 said:

    ROI was mentioned previously, and is the way to put numbers to any cost / benefit analysis. ROI is pretty much guaranteed to be negative while you are building something. It has to be in use for some time, once the major investment in the construction is complete. The costs fall dramatically at that point, while the benefits are maximized, too. And don't underestimate the future benefits to be gained by American science and commercial concerns from it's future efforts. This has shown to be largely incalculable in the past from NASA'a projects, and that's just from what was managed to get funded.    

    Also, the ISS is a joint venture, and we made some commitments to our partners when we all entered into this venture together. I for one would have us stand by our commitments to our partners, as well as hold to the vision this project was founded to fulfill, and not fall prey to the shifting POV of politicians looking to bet on the highest vote count they can get from the whims of a populous enrolled in the prevailing wind of opinion as seen in the media from one moment to the next. It would be nice if we could continue to show some foresight and leadership. Without it, this country can count on never turning around it's crisis in confidence and continue to hold any position in the world.

    Lastly, there's a hole card that should be played, when the decisions on The Hill go against  further advances in space, again. Sell it to commercial concerns, the highest bidder(s). It's about time the government got out of the way of investments in the commercial use of space.

    If development of this country was still limited to funding Columbus and Lewis & Clark and their ilk, and people wanting to create businesses and towns and cities (recall, all those are incorporated for a reason; growth and prosperity) were held back from sharing the risk of creating new ventures, we certainly wouldn't be putting people in any space, 2D or 3D.

    August 11, 2009 2:00 PM
  • majornick said:

    If anyone is interested I have made a little iPhone game as a tribute to the ISS. Take a peek and let me know what you think. <a href="equate-it.com/issi">International Space Station Invaders</a>

    September 4, 2009 5:36 PM
E-mail Address: Password:
Remember me?

Forgot your password » | Login help »

Not a member? Register » | Why join? »

My Profile

This Blog

Syndication

Copyright © 2009 Astronomy.com
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems