ISS Loses Orbit-Boosting Options

An anonymous reader writes "NewScientist reports is reporting that the International Space Station has lost some of its options when it comes to altitude-boosting due to several recent failures. From the article: 'The problems began on 19 April 2006, when the Russian Zvezda service module's main engines failed during a test. The failure may have been due to a sunshade cover that was not completely open, according to a station status report.'"

Comments

Sucesses?

[mboverload]

Can someone lay out what the ISS has actually done for us? It seems to be a crowded bunch of poorly-engineered tin cans floating above us and sucking up money in the process.

Re:Sucesses?

[AKAImBatman]

The parent is effectively correct, even if he is a bit abrasive about it. The Space Station, just like the Space Shuttle, was a victim of politics. What was originally going to be a staging point for a moon colony became an international piece of junk that should have been scrapped as soon as its stated purpose was lost. Instead, NASA went ahead and built a station in the wrong orbit that wasn't useful for anything other than showing the flag. Construction has been long behind schedule, over budget, and the poor station has been falling apart at the seams from day 1.

Of course, I'm sure there are political reasons why they couldn't NOT build it.

Thank God for the CEV program. It may seem like a step back, but it will actually be a huge step forward for the space program. Let's just hope that Griffin gets it finished before the next political fallout.

Re:Sucesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

The true use of the space station is that is shows that a long term spaceship can't be built in small sections over a long period of time without the whole assembly obsoleting itself or wearing out before it starts its main mission.

For the sake of argument, presume that the spacestation had been designed to travel to mars. By adding high thrust ion engines and power plants, this could have been done. However an assembly as large as the space station and typical for the requirement, loses over a mile of altitude a day in earth orbit and will burn up in the atmosphere within 1 year of ceasing to re-adjust its orbit higher.

What has been really learned is that complex space ships of conventional design will age too soon to be of much use other than to learn how fast things wear out and wear down in a space environment.

Based on that, which had to be learned, the space station has served its intended purposes well.

Re:Sucesses?

[kfg]

Can someone lay out what the ISS has actually done for us?

It got rid of a bunch of poorly engineered tin cans?

KFG

Re:Sucesses?

[edxwelch]

I heard they do very interesting experiments on the effects of zero gravity on bees. What more do you want?

Re:Sucesses?

[MightyMartian]

That's an interesting post hoc justification for one of the largest wastes of cash the US and its international partners have thus far created. It's a floating garbage can, meant to make contractors money. It has never justified its existence, and never will, and the best thing to do at this point is to crash it and begin doing something truly useful for science and for the future exploration of the solar system by building something on the Moon.

Re:Sucesses?

[drinkypoo]

It should never have been built in the first place. Using it as a staging area for moon missions? Did anyone believe that would actually save us any money? That's the only reason why it MIGHT be worthwhile. Which it isn't.

It's also too small to be a serious staging area for anything bigger than a toaster, anyway. They'd have had to add significant amounts of storage space, much of which will have to be pressurized, further increasing the demands upon the facility. By the same token, it's too small to do much of anything in, so it's not a useful scientific platform.

The ISS was guaranteed to be a boondoggle from the beginning. It's nothing but a colossal waste of time, aside from the research involved in building the thing and putting it up there. If we were smarter we'd have just built a big spaceship up there in the first place, and sent it to Mars. Of course, we'd still be building the thing, but at least it would be useful when we were done.

Re:Sucesses?

[LiquidEdge]

I thought there was no such thing as zero gravity? Everything has some gravitational pull on it. Effects on bees in freefall though may someday cure...something. Vertigo?

Re:Sucesses?

[dugjohnson]

This is an experiment in waste management. It is a replacement for the garbage scow going down the Hudson.

Re: Sucesses?

[i am kman]

Forget CEV - just go back to BDRs (Big Dumb Rockets) and screw all this people in space crap. Look at the great stuff from Hubble and Mars that's far cheaper than any shuttle or space station missions. (Yeah, yeah, hubble was launched by the shuttle...).

The space station and shuttle have paralyzed NASA for decades and have set back space exploration and space science by at least 10-15 years.

While a noble concept, the space station has devolved to symbolize the politicization and popularization of science.

And, for what??? Not much.

Re:Sucesses?

[kfg]

It is a replacement for the garbage scow going down the Hudson.

But I like to take my scow down the Hudson. That's what I built it for.

Oh, wait, you mean . . . nevermind.

KFG

Re:Sucesses?

[ScottLindner]

It's a floating garbage can, meant to make contractors money.

Boy.. aren't we the objective ones today. Did you believe in this conspiracy before the problems, or only after?

My take is that working on a massive internation project like this is very challenging. With all other joint international projects one nation owns the entire thing and accepts funding for new requirements from the others. ISS is completely different and it's teaching all nations a very good lesson. As a global society we need to learn how to do things like this. It's best for us all.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

Well, the storage room wouldn't be so expensive if they were to use some modules like the TransHab module..... oops, canceled that.

I was very excited about the possibilities of the Centerfuge Accomidation Module. Finally they could put up some rodents or fish or other small-enough-to-work-on-the-centerfuge research animals and make them run through the entire reproductive cycle in space repeatedly at different levels of gravity, so if a few Blessed Events accidentally happen some day up there, they'll know what to do..... oops, but that got canned to.

It would be useful for on-orbit checkout of large spacecraft.... but the 51 degree inclanation orbit is going to cost you enough in payload and reduced opportunities for launch that there's no point... you might as well launch something sized like the FGB into the right orbit and you'll come out ahead.

It would be great for researching viruses and such because you can crystalize proteins in space easier than on the ground.... except that between the 1980s when they were going on about it and now, they instead developed improved analytical machines that don't require the sort of perfect large crystals that space is good for.

Oh! Right! We can test out space systems that would be useful for the real missions later on. Except that the station STILL relies on a bunch of Russian hardware that we already know is a smidge clunky.

The station makes perfect sense when you realize that it's a bunch of repackaged hardware built around assumptions from the 70s that we knew to be untrue around 85. The problem is that they didn't take a big step backwards at any point between 1985 and 2000 and really reassess things.

For example, the only time that the option of launching some of the American modules on an expendable booster was considered, they wanted to make the Shuttle-C, not just buy a quiver of Atlas or Titan rockets.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

Um.

The CEV's going to be just as much of a clusterfuck as the shuttle. All of the same contractors are going to do to it the same thing they managed to do with the shuttle.

Look at the proposal. The SRB first stage on the CEV's booster.... so that Thikol doesn't complain to their congresscritter. The cargo vehicle with the external tank so that you don't lose that factory. No effort to make the CEV work on anybody else's launcher, like the EELV Atlas and Deltas or maybe let SpaceX try to undercut things. The CEV proposals being geared towards the big aerospace contractors. Etc.

Nope, the only thing NASA is doing right is the COTS program. And you can bet that if it starts to look really good, it'll get canned, sidelined, or otherwise disrupted so as to not end up working out.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

Not really.

An effective prototype would be able to survive for several years between resupply missions.

Remember, the only "on orbit repair" work that's been done is swapping out parts. If the crew was able to take soldering iron and diagonal cutters to the hardware and fix things, or actually put on a spacesuit and check out why a thruster wasn't firing properly, then it would be a realistic prototype for a Mars mission.

Re:Sucesses?

[WindBourne]

While the CEV may turn into a cluster F***, it does not matter. We need a large cargo rocket and we need a small cheap rocket for humans. That is what we are getting. In addition, we are funding alternatives. I would rather fund 2-4 of them rather the one that we will probably do. But even then, getting competitive systems off the ground will pay back down the road.

Re: Sucesses?

[WindBourne]

Your rant reminds of those that argued that Europeans should not explore overseas. Had they not pushed outwards, then the world would look radically different today. America (and the world) needs to push outwards.

Re:Sucesses?

[fm6]

The true use of the space station is that is shows that a long term spaceship can't be built in small sections over a long period of time without the whole assembly obsoleting itself or wearing out before it starts its main mission.

Uh, you are aware that they didn't plan such a long construction period. Not having a working shuttle has kind of screwed up the schedule.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

Um.

There aren't any alternatives funded for the CEV. It's about as competitive as the shuttle's procurement was. NASA was going to make the two leading teams do a fly-off, but that was removed from the plan. So, one CEV booster that's intended to last us all the way to the Mars shot, and no alternatives.

We don't need two new boosters. We don't even need two boosters at all. It would have been far cheaper to just source either Delta or Atlas EELV stages. (and leave open the option for SpaceX to sell a Falcon 9 when they get that one ready) Or, if they had wanted to build a new booster that bad, to make something that was somewhat bigger than the CEV's booster stage and then distribute the pieces of any lunar exploration missions into a series of launches. But, instead, NASA builds *two* new boosters at the same time and gets to deal with two sets of development problems with increasing amounts of divergence between the two designs.

That NASA still cannot just source lift capability on the open market demonstrates just how they haven't learned their lessons.

Re: Sucesses?

[stridebird]

Forget CEV - just go back to BDRs (Big Dumb Rockets) and screw all this people in space crap. Look at the great stuff from Hubble and Mars that's far cheaper than any shuttle or space station missions. (Yeah, yeah, hubble was launched by the shuttle...).

Hubble: yeah ok nice idea but superceded now by adaptive optics on earth based observatories. Very cool correction of the initial fault in the mirror of course.

Mars robotic missions...the way forward. And the web really helps selling the mission to joe public. It is awesome to look at the pictures and contemplate the data that's coming back.

More robotic missions, and rather than sending antiseptic vehicles, we should load them up with a choice set of microbes and see if we can kick-start life in other places. We owe this to life itself, and it's a much more intelligent form of space travel. Don't send humans, send simple, tough life-forms and see what comes back a million or a 100 million years hence. From our planet a cloud of spores, little spaceships loaded of virii and bacteria, should burst forth travelling out on trajectories to collide with other heavenly bodies, just to see what grows there.

Re: Sucesses?

[Waffle Iron]

If the Europeans had had the technology to send robotic missions to the new world at 1% of the cost of sending manned missions, it would have made perfect sense for them to do so first.

Sending human explorers wasn't exactly a risk-free endeavor, either. If the situation had been a little different, and smallpox existed in the New World but not the old, European societies might have eventually ended up being wiped out and we could all be speaking Aztec today. (Of course that point doesn't apply to space exploration, but I'm just pointing out that it's not a given that exploration in blissful ignorance was going to end with the Europeans benefiting.)

Re:Sucesses?

[Waffle Iron]

With that point in mind, NASA has commissioned a new official poster for the ISS project.

Re:Sucesses?

[mysticgoat]

Agree w/ parent and GP.

IIRC, the general plan before it got modified by politicians was to place the ISS at a higher orbit and use a never-constructed Space Tug to transfer cargo from the low orbit that is all the Shuttle can manage to the ISS itself. Combined with fully recoverable/reuseable Shuttle boosters, this could have been an effective system (provided the technology of the day was up to constructing it without going too far over budget).

Too many cost overruns in the Shuttle's development, and too many careers that became too dependent on doing something that could be described as a success in some way did the whole thing in. But now that nearly everyone who made a career out of building the Shuttle and ISS is retired, maybe it will be possible to take another run at the problem and get things more nearly right.

Re:Sucesses?

[Ziviyr]

Now, with a picture of the ISS with wind streaming around it, that'd be a buy.

Re:Sucesses?

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

The true use of the space station is that is shows that a long term spaceship can't be built in small sections over a long period of time without the whole assembly obsoleting itself or wearing out before it starts its main mission.

Even if that was true of ISS (which is a stretch at the very least), it doesn't prove it for the general case. In particular ISS is designed to be occupied and used while it is under construction, and designed to be serviced on orbit. If you were designing a deep space craft, you would make different choices.

For the sake of argument, presume that the spacestation had been designed to travel to mars. By adding high thrust ion engines and power plants, this could have been done.

Only if you completely redesigned most of it. ISS is designed for LEO. To make it work in deep space would require major changes. The thermal control, power and navigation systems are designed for LEO.

However an assembly as large as the space station and typical for the requirement, loses over a mile of altitude a day in earth orbit and will burn up in the atmosphere within 1 year of ceasing to re-adjust its orbit higher.

ISS loses ~100 meters/day when it is on the lower edge of it's nominal orbits. Maybe 200 meters if solar activity is really high. Incidentally, if it lost a mile per day, it would burn up in a matter of months or less, depending on the starting altitude.

What has been really learned is that complex space ships of conventional design will age too soon to be of much use other than to learn how fast things wear out and wear down in a space environment.

Not at all. Many of the original components are working fine, and the ones that have failed have definite, identifiable and fixable reasons for failing. Although ISS is an awfully expensive way of doing it, it does provide significant lessons in building long duration crewed spacecraft. Far better to learn these lessons in LEO rather than on the way to mars.

Re:Sucesses?

[DerekLyons]

Can someone lay out what the ISS has actually done for us?

Why would you have expected it to do anything? It's *under construction*. One hardly expects an incomplete facility of any kind to accomplish anything.

Now, if one one want to make the arguement that the design and construction process is flawed - you are on firm ground. But complaining about it not having accomplished yet is like driving up to a fast food place before the walls are up - and complaining about the service or lack thereof.

Re:Sucesses?

[Rei]

About research: Half of ISS's research is privately funded. Also, while xray crystallography has indeed advanced here on the surface, large crystals are still a big help. The main problem with the ISS's protein crystal growth experiments is that they have been very inconsistent in performance; some results have been great, but others not very good. There's some suggestion that trying to grow them in the same manner that we do on Earth is to blame for this, and we'd get better results by changing the method (it's been a while since I read the paper on the subject, so I don't remember the details)

The problem with buying "a quiver of Atlas or Titan rockets" is docking. Only now, with the DART program (round one failed, but it was close), is automated docking close to becoming a reality. DART failed, by the way, because in its attempts to do the precise maneuvering necessary to get close to its target without colliding with it, it overmaneuvered, burned through its fuel too quickly, and (correctly) forced itself to withdraw to a safe orbit.

Re:Sucesses?

[Fractal Dice]

When the project first began, there was a wonderful editorial in Science that basically warned it was going to be a white elephant that would suck dry the budgets of all other space science. The whole thing was essentially a "we can't let the Russians hold the success of Mir over us" ego trip. The whole project ignored the fact that the shuttle program had failed in its primary mission: cutting the cost-to-orbit by a couple of order of manitude. We've essentially wasted an entire generation of research/exploration because of the ISS. IMHO, space-based science/development can't progress any further unless there is a way to get things into orbit and beyond at a cost on the scale of an airplane rather than a rocket.

Re:Sucesses?

[sl4shd0rk]

All the worlds government's store their pr0n collections up there in case of nuclear war.

Re:Sucesses?

[AKAImBatman]

All of the same contractors are going to do to it the same thing they managed to do with the shuttle.

Look around the industry sometime. There aren't exactly many contractors to deal with. T/Space is about the only "new" company on the block, and they are working with NASA now. Albeit in a much reduced capacity from what they were originally attempting.

The SRB first stage on the CEV's booster.... so that Thikol doesn't complain to their congresscritter.

Actually, the reuse of technology lets them get the rocket done faster. Plus, the SRBs are already man rated, and are some of the most powerful first stage rockets in existence. Given the tight budget and short timeframe of the CEV project, it makes a lot of sense.

The cargo vehicle with the external tank so that you don't lose that factory. No effort to make the CEV work on anybody else's launcher, like the EELV Atlas and Deltas or maybe let SpaceX try to undercut things.

If you can find us a pair of launchers that are both man-rated and can carry over 100 tonnes of cargo to LEO, then I'm sure NASA would like to know about it. Since such things don't exist, NASA is forced to build their own.

As for the ET, you need a LHOx tank. What's so strange about using one that NASA has experience with? Especially when one realizes that NASA is looking as J-2 and Delta-4 engines instead of SSMEs for some stages. The J-2 has already been decided on, and the D4 engines are being seriously considered.

Re:Sucesses?

[91degrees]

There were a lot of mistakes. Mistakes that would have been made more expensive had they decided on a more expensive version of the ISS. Sure, this wasn't he point, but at least knowing what might go wrong will come in useful if they ever decide to do it properly.

Re:Sucesses?

[wzzzzrd]

the US and its international partners

god, i hate THAT attitude. for some people anything the US is involved in becomes "the US and..."

and please, don't give me figures about how much the us founded of this. if you do so i will give you figures about the us military expense (i could give you much more worse figures, but i'm a social guy).

Re:Sucesses?

[WindBourne]

This will provide access to the iSS and LEO.

As to the boosters, yes, we do need the large one. The smaller one could have been a delta. But none of the other boosters are in the same area WRT to capacity. Of course, that was based on the initial specs. It remains to be seen if they are really going to gut this one. If so, then it is better to go with what we have. But I suspect that griffin will put his foot down and insist on a larger booster, not a smaller one.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

DART was not doing in-space docking. It was doing autonomous in-space inspection and maintenence, which is much much harder, especially because the goal was to not need to design the target to be maintained.

There's a huge difference between bumping two modules together at a socket-recepticle connector and manuvering around a vehicle autonomously.

The US has been bumping socket-recepticle connectors together since the days of Gemini and the Russians have been mostly-automatically bumping androgynous connectors together since the days of Salyut.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

The need for a large booster is based around flawed assumptions.

The heavy lift booster flies twice a year, the light booster flies maybe 6 times a year. It would be far cheaper to fly a single medium booster 12 flights a year. Same, if not more upmass will be flown. Remember, the more of the same thing you build, the cheaper it gets, because you can use more economical manufacturing techniques.

Also, think about the difference between sending two or three smaller earth departure stages into a parking orbit instead of sending a single larger earth departure stage. The larger departure stage MUST work, so you'll make it doubly or tripply redundant. The smaller stages have lowered requirements for working because there's two or three of them, so you don't need to add as much redundancy, therefore the individual stages contain more fuel and less redundant hardware. Both the Americans and the Russians have ample experience bumping two modules into each other at the correct spot to build a larger module... that's not a huge problem at all.

Re:Sucesses?

[Rei]

All of the current systems, including Russia's radar-based Automated Approach and Docking system, involve some level of human control in the process. To quote Jim Snoddy, the DART project manager:

"DART is the first thing out for the new exploration initiative, so the intention is, DART is a technology development program to enable the CEV to do one of the things we need, which is to autonomously rendezvous and dock in space."

DART was a docking technology demonstrator. It wasn't a final project, but it wasn't intended to be, either. The evolutionary goal of DART is to be able to have, without any outside interference, payloads approach and dock with ISS without needing human involvement in the process.

As to why DART itself wasn't going to dock:

"DART is using the existing satellite which is currently in orbit, called MUBLCOM. It was put up in 1999 for the potential one day application to go up and rendezvous with a satellite. At the time, no docking mechanisms existed, so DART was never intended to dock. We would love to dock with it. Other programs in the future will go ahead and dock."

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

Sure there's not much left on the market, although that's mostly because of the problems that NASA has already created for itself in combination with the defense biz.

Also, there's not even much incentive for the teams to deliver the actual cheapest system. They just have to write the best proposal. Were they to have flown demonstrators of the two designs, NASA wouldn't need to start a bidding and design process all over again to switch systems, they'd just need to give the other team a year or two of lead time to dust off the design.

Man-rating is a myth. NASA has traditionally invented arbitrary standards to justify their own empire-building that the commercial competition just happens to not be able to meet... and then giving their own projects exemptions to the standards once they are partway through and are almost out of money.

Remember, none of the parts of the SdLVs are currently man-rated. The SRBs have an extra segment, so they will need to be certified again because they've never flown in that configuration. The ET wasn't designed to have thrust on that vector, so you can't just duct-tape engines to the bottom of it and re-use it. The EDS and CLV second stage are completely new stages.

Oh, and they'll need to build at least one more complete launchpad at KSC.

There were plenty of proposals for clustering EELV first stages together. Just because the Atlas V only has launched with one CCB and the Delva IV has launched with three CBCs doesn't mean that's all they can handle.

Oh, and there's not any need for a heavy lift booster anyway. It's going to be far cheaper per pound to launch more missions with less payload per mission and means that you could have three singly-redundant EDS modules instead of one tripply redundant EDS module.

NASA is going through the trouble of building all of this new infrastructure primarily because if any of the shuttle-related factories are closed down, congresscritters will be unhappy and NASA managers may have nothing to do, not because it is the cheapest, best, or safest way to go.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

So?

Fully autonomous docking is not necessary. The lightspeed delay to orbit is sufficently small that some people on the ground can bang them together just fine.

Re:Sucesses?

[WindBourne]

No doubt that it is cheaper to fly a bunch of rockets, then to fly one big one. In addition, the other good arument that you missed is that if we lose one, then we lose a much smaller percentage of the load.

Your argument about the timing is very incorrect. What is missing in your argument is that we need to then send multiple mission AND then join them. This leads to a timing issue. Keep in mind that the longer something is in orbit the longer the likeyhood of slow leaks, more fuel, etc. In fact, is the many small rocket problems that has caused the bulk of the high costs and multiple issues with the ISS. Russia use of small rockets forced our hand into lowering the ISS orbit. In addition, we now require many launches of the shuttle to get the equipment into space because of the small size of the shuttle. OTH, had they had more powerful rockets, then we could have had the ISS into a proper orbit and finished LONG ago.

Finally, if we are really going back to the moon and onto Mars, we will need to do plenty of launches. That means that even a true heavy lift rocket will see multiple launches / year.

Keep in mind that not only is NASA looking to go the moon, but private enterprise as well. Initially, some will try to go with small-medium size sticks. But the second that we have even a small station on the moon, then you will see everybody wanting to use the heavy lift. They will not be able to get enough equipment on the moon (and mars) to suit their desire.

Re:Sucesses?

[cmowire]

No, as you launch more missions, there is necessarily a shorter gap between them.

Plus, you forget about pad time vs. stacking time. If we are using LC-39, there are three mobile launch platforms, two pads, and four bays in the VAB without doing major modifications or construction. Without building extra pads in LC-39 (which, if NASA does manage to actually launch the new launch vehicles often, is almost required, given that there are two different types of launcher), that still lets you begin a launch campaign with 3 fully stacked vehicles and room to start stacking a fourth after the first launch.

And there's always building a fourth mobile launch platform and/or using LC 34 for one of the launches, giving five launches in quick succession.

With the CLV as-is, the same upmass could as the heavy lift booster be carried in about four flights. With an upraded "universal" booster, you could easily do it with three launches.

Remember how short the time was between Gemini 6 and 7? That was with them both launching from the same pad.

Also, if you boot 'em up to a higher parking orbit, atmospheric drag decreases.

Not really any danger...

[ZSpade]

As the article itself states, they move the ISS when there is a 1 in 10,000 chance something will hit it, and they know well in advance if that's the case. The ISS is getting so old that I think it's starting to get ridiculous to report all of it's little breakdowns here and there. Personally I think at this point it's a money hole that's outlived it's usefulness.

Re:Not really any danger...

[CharlieHedlin]

If that is the case it was never usefull. The ISS is still relatively young and only partly constructed. It is way over budget and way behind schedule so you may be right.

Simply put, it is like saying your house is too old when it was a 1 year old and only half built.

Re:Not really any danger...

[CanSpice]

At this point? The ISS has been a money hole since before it was put up in orbit.

Re:Not really any danger...

[fyndor]

If I remember right I heard a few months ago the reason they are doing this is because it has reached an altitude (due to earths gravity) that they need to start pushing it up again. It will always slowly fall, then have to be taken back up to a higher altitude. Because of physics the closer it comes to earth the faster it falls so they are trying to get it lifted back up before it reaches a point where they can't save it. It may or may not be worth the money to have it up there right now but we have put enough money in to it i dont think they should just let it fall to earth. It is a stepping stone to further space exploration. I guess if you don't believe we should be exploring space then you can say they should take it down, but otherwise I can see its usefullness.

Re:Not really any danger...

[peragrin]

No it's like saying my parents house was too old and out of date when it was 5 years old, and still not finished. (note they never did finish it even though we lived in it for almost 20 years)

The ISS can't be finished. it needs the shuttle to finish it and the shuttle will be phased out long before the ISS is finished.

What the ISS has taught us and no one has figured out is that we need a vaible method for getting small things up to orbit easily. Progress shuttles from Russia don't count. those haven't changed a lot since the 70's. And all the budgets for such craft keep getting cancled.

Re:Not really any danger...

[khallow]

guess if you don't believe we should be exploring space then you can say they should take it down, but otherwise I can see its usefullness.

Actually, if I wanted to deliberately obstruct space exploration, I would encourage expensive and pointless projects like the Shuttle or the ISS. Given that the ISS is now in space, it may be that it is worth saving for some purpose. But I fail to see why the ISS is supposed to be a stepping stone to space. We are closer to having a real presence in space, but that is due to technology developed on Earth, not due to the very expensive hobbies that most government space agencies engage in.

Re:Not really any danger...

[fm6]

How can it be old? They haven't finished building the damn thing yet!

Re:Not really any danger...

[helioquake]

I don't know if the artcile mentions it or not (DRFA), but a collision isn't a major issue in the short or long term.

But, in the long term, the ISS is now unable to push itself up to a higher orbit. Its orbit decays very slowly. So every so often when a space shuttle parked at it, the shuttle used its thruster to push the ISS to a higher orbit. It hasn't been able to do that, unfortunately.

Luck would have it, the solar maximum phase is behind us. At this point the atmosphere is fairly thin at the ISS's altitude. But in a few years when the Sun becomes active again, the perpetual mechanicam problem in a thruster like this would become a more serious problem.

Re:Not really any danger...

[Breakfast Pants]

It has nothing to do with gravity; if that were the case the moon would have hit us billions of years ago. It is because the orbit is relatively low and there are tiny amounts of atmosphere present, which create drag on the space station and slow it. When it slows down out of the proper speed for maintaining an orbit, then gravity becomes a problem.

Re:Not really any danger...

[dan the person]

Why does the thing that we send small things up to space in have to be designed more recently than the 70's?

If it works, use it.

I quite happily commute on subway trains that are older than colour television.

Re:Not really any danger...

[fyndor]

You can't say it has nothing to do with gravity because it does. The moon would hit the be pulled in if it were close enough, but its far enough out with enough acceleration that it is actually going away from us. There is no amount of atmosphere that would pull the ISS down without gravity. Ultimately it is gravity, and the atmosphere makes the situation even worse.

Re:Not really any danger...

[Breakfast Pants]

Did you read my last sentence? A satellite falling out of orbit requires both gravity and atmosphere, or an improper orbit (too slow for it's altitude). So no, "ultimately it is" not " gravity"; it is the combination of gravity and atmosphere.

Re:Bring it back...

[EQ]

Why do things fail? Well the real miracle is why do they work at all:

Space is a pretty brutal enironment. Hard vacuum, only microgravity, extremes of cold and heat, etc.

Re:Bring it back...

[AKAImBatman]

How in the world do you plan to get 183 tonnes of mass back to Earth in one piece? The Shuttle has a maximum payload capacity of 25 tonnes. It's the ONLY option currently available for returning large objects to Earth.

It would be way cheaper and easier to send up a bunch of "experts" to figure the sucker out rather than return it to Earth.

(Sorry if I'm a bit snippy. Rough day, and all that.)

I propose renaming the station ...

[Luscious868]

Let's rename the station to something more appropriate: ICF: International Cluster Fuck

Re:I propose renaming the station ...

[linzeal]

You mean American foreign policy, that is what it is called around here.

Re:I propose renaming the station ...

[evilandi]

The Americans have a foriegn policy? You mean someone actually intended all that crap?

Surely if the kind of people in charge of such a policy were put in charge getting things into orbit, they'd be half way through digging to China by now?

Coke bottle hell.....

[Roskolnikov]

1 in 10,000 something will hit it? what about it hitting something?

Re:Coke bottle hell.....

[shutdown -p now]

Keeping in mind that all is relative, isn't it the same thing?

no worries

[ezwip]

Don't worry they have a procedure for getting these things down. It's called cross your fingers and aim it at an underdeveloped country. ;)

Re:no worries

[Static11]

When Skylab went down they nearly crashed it into Australia! Don't trust their aim!

Sitting in a tin can...

[rev_media]

Far above the world. Can you hear me major Tom?

Re:Bring it back...

[FurryFeet]

I can tell you wht things fail. Quote Alan Shepard: "I was up there looking around, and suddenly I realized I was sitting on top of a rocket built by the lowest bidder".

But bring it back for that? You have GOT to be kidding. Do you also bring your house to a plumber's shop when you have a clogged toilet?

Does anyone remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember the Taco Bell bulls-eye and the MIR? Maybe they will have another contest and I can try and win some free tacos.

and not a 30-year old Taco at that....

Re:Bring it back...

[anzev]

Great thoughts! I totally agree with you! However, the only problem is this station is huge! In fact, according to the NASA Mission Page it's 404,069 pounds with a width Across Solar Arrays of 240 feet. It's 146 feet long from Destiny Lab to Zvezda; 171 feet with a Progress docked and 90 feet high!

Whilst if you take a peek at the Shuttle info page you'll find that the cargo bay is 60 ft long, 15 ft in diameter. so there's almost no way you could get that station anywhere inside the orbiter. The only possible way to get it down, is the same way we got it up there in the first place. Which means dismantling it ! I found a nice array of photos showing the process here.

I find the station has cost billions already and is a decade behind schedule. Here's a summary:
INITIAL DESIGN PAPERWORK -- $10 billion
HARDWARE -- $25 billion
SHUTTLE SERVICING COSTS -- $20 billion
MAINTENANCE -- $41 billion
YEAR 2001 COST OVERRUN (disclosed immediately AFTER the presidential election of 2000): $5 billion.

So, multiply this by two and you get the cost of bringing it down. Are you a tax payer? If so, I'm guessing you don't want to pay that :). Hope this clears the question of why they let sattelites burn up there too ... In case it doesn't, it costs around 2000 USD per pound to send a sattelite to space. It costs twice as much to recover it (sending an empty shuttle, a space walk, operating the hand, bringing it down) and we're taking a serious risk here, I mean, sending it up requires no humans, so if something goes wrong, we just blew up a few millions, but hey, if a shuttle explodes -- all hell breaks lose. So I say, leave them to burn out!

If they can't figure it out...

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

... heads up!

1 in 10,000

[SIGFPE]

It is done whenever there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of an object hitting the station

Does this mean that every time they see an object that might hit they're prepared to gamble the entire ISS with 10,000 to 1 odds. So if they see 100 distinct objects with a less than 1 in 10,000 chance of hitting, over the ISS lifetime, there's a roughly 1% chance of one of them hitting? Are these reasonable odds when we're talking about something that cost of the order of $100,000,000,000 to build and carries people.

Re:1 in 10,000

[fishbowl]

>Does this mean that every time they see an object that might hit they're prepared to
>gamble the entire ISS with 10,000 to 1 odds.

It's not as though every collision is expected to do catastrophic damage, and you're treating it like it's 10,000:1 odds against assurd destruction.

Re:1 in 10,000

[Antony T Curtis]

Probabilities of independent events are not cumulative... ...otherwise, a very large number of individuals who commute by car would have accumulated a probability of having an accident far in excess of 100% every year.

Concider this:

What is the probability that the next coin-flip comes up heads? 50%...
After I flip heads, what is the next probability for getting heads? It is still 50%.
The next coin flip getting heads? 50% again.

Now, the probability of three consequtive coin flips getting all heads is 12.5%

Re:1 in 10,000

[ScottLindner]

That's how probability works. You *cannot* guarantee an accident will not happen. You can only reduce the odds. You can only get close to 100% guarantee, but not actually achieve 100% guarantee. As you get closer to 100% the costs go up enormously. If you wanted to knock it down to 1:100,000 odds you will pay more than 10x the cost. And then.. it's still only a probability, and not a frequency. You interpretted it as a frequency of problems, and not a probability.

Even with this low probability, the ISS could get whacked once every day.. and the probably would still be 1:10000 with the procedure they are using today. Assuming they are modelling probability properly.

Re:1 in 10,000

[Moofie]

But you're neglecting something.

My odds of being in a car crash go up with time. Meaning, if I have a .01% chance of being in a wreck per day I commute to work, my chances of being in a car wreck at some point in the year are something on the order of 2.00%. (Yes, those numbers are totally fabricated) No, the chances of getting in a car wreck today are not impacted by whether I got in a car wreck yesterday, but my chances of having a wreck absolutely do increase the more times I get in the car.

The more times you flip a coin, your probability of getting at least one "Heads" flip does indeed approach 100%. Pretty quickly, actually.

Re:1 in 10,000

[solitas]

and carries people

And carries volunteers - they all know what they may be in for when they sign up.

Re:1 in 10,000

[SIGFPE]

Probabilities of independent events are not cumulative...

Woah! I can't wait to hook up with you at Vegas. I hope you have lots of money to burn.

Re:1 in 10,000

[SIGFPE]

And then.. it's still only a probability, and not a frequency.

What do you think the difference is?

Re:1 in 10,000

[Antony T Curtis]

But computing the probability of being involved in an accident over a period of time is fiendishly difficult as the number of influencing factors increase expotentially.

You must agree that there is a limit as time increases as to the maximum probability of being involved in an automobile accident over the course of a lifetime (or as time --> infinity) and that probability cannot possibily equal or exceed 100%.
On the other end of the scale, there is a minimum probability that in any instant in time that you may be actively involved in an accident, which conversely, must be greater than 0% - but would be a very small figure.

Then the probability of being in an accident generally lies between these two extremes and would depend upon what time of day you drive, what kind of car... and did you have breakfast this morning.

But in no way is it a simple task of adding up the probabilities to reach a number. It is a falsehood to say that "I drive less frequently than my neighbour therefore he will be in an accident before me." as it is omitting a huge number of variables.

And it is perfectly reasonable to do 100 coin flips on a fair coin, each time coming up heads. It is just an extraordinary combination of events, of which each individually has a 50:50 chance of occurring.

Re:1 in 10,000

[ScottLindner]

The difference between what, and what?

Re:1 in 10,000

[SIGFPE]

Between a probability and a frequency? I understand 1 in 10,000 to mean something that happens, on average, at a frequency of one time in 10,000.

Re:1 in 10,000

[Moofie]

"But computing the probability of being involved in an accident over a period of time is fiendishly difficult as the number of influencing factors increase expotentially."

Well, of course. I was making a huge number of simplifications. However, your bald assertion that the probabilities are not cumulative is misleading. Yes, it's more complicated than just adding up the probabilities, but it's certainly true that your chances of event A happening increase with exposure to opportunities when A may occur.

""I drive less frequently than my neighbour therefore he will be in an accident before me." "

Of course. That's just a variation on the gambler's fallacy. However, holding all other factors equal, the person who drives more has a higher probability of getting in an accident. It's not a difficult thing to understand.

"And it is perfectly reasonable to do 100 coin flips on a fair coin, each time coming up heads. It is just an extraordinary combination of events, of which each individually has a 50:50 chance of occurring."

Well, again, of course. It's perfectly "reasonable", but it's extremely unlikely.

Re:1 in 10,000

[khallow]

That's probably 1 in 10,000 over the expected lifetime of the ISS. So maybe 10-20 years. Would correspond to a collision every 100,000 to 200,000 years assuming that we maintained the level of space junk at its current level and didn't change the collision evasion procedure.

Re:1 in 10,000

[RealUlli]

Sorry to burst your bubble - but the probabilities *are* cumulative.

What is the probability that the next coin-flip comes up heads? 50%... After I flip heads, what is the next probability for getting heads? It is still 50%. The next coin flip getting heads? 50% again.

Now, the probability of three consequtive coin flips getting all heads is 12.5%

correct so far - but what you describe is the probability of getting into an accident on *every* commute. The probability of getting into at least one accident is cumulative. You coin toss also works the other way - the probablility of getting all numbers is also 12.5%, so the probability of getting at least one heads is 87.5%.

(I think the car accident problem is still different, but I don't remember the formula - I think (for a 1 in 10000 chance) the probability of *not* getting into a car accident is something along the lines of

(1-<probability>)^<number_of_tries>
= ((9999/10000)^<number_of_commutes>

It approaches zero, but never reaches it... it's been some years since my probability theory class... ;-)

Best regards, Ulli

Re:1 in 10,000

[91degrees]

Maybe that's just the arbitrary criterion. E.g. there's a 1 in a million chance of object X hitting the station, but this probability will increase of decrease as the object gets closer. They ignore it for the time being and move when they have better information.

The real problem...

[Bryansix]

is that there is so much space junk. And 99.9% of it is from humans. We need some sort of space junk collection device to be deployed.

Re:The real problem...

[Sordid Euphemism]

The problem with trying to reduce space-junk is that any ablative system will simply create -more- space-junk. Aerogel may be a semisolution for the smaller pieces, but the larget bits of junk will demolish most platforms put up for restraint. Let's put it this way: The easiest way to utterly destroy access to space is to put up a few satellites full of 1-2cm steel ball bearings, and have them explode. Say goodbye to space exploration, even through telescope, for a few decades.

Re:Bring it back...

[drinkypoo]

No, but the plumber doesn't have to reach orbital velocity to get to my toilet, either. I'm pretty sure roto-rooter would charge an awful lot to clear a drain on the ISS.

It's a good thing we are at solar minimum

[kabloie]

But, these good times won't last long. If we don't get some help soon... the reentry show is going to make Mir look like a mere meteor.

Progress control

[Tango42]

If the ISS can't control the Progress rockets, but Russian ground control can, it sounds like the problem is simply with the ISS, so why can't they just go through the airlock and control it from inside the Progress craft? I know Progress is an unmanned craft, so probably doesn't have a pilot's seat, but it shouldn't be too hard to rig something up, just in case. They're meant to have some of the best engineers around, surely one of them knows how to splice an extra interface into the system...

Re:Progress control

[MichaelSmith]

shouldn't be too hard to rig something up, just in case.

I can't see a reason for there to be any electronic connection between the pressurised forward module and propulsion module of the progress spacecraft.

The astronaut would have to go EVA to rig up a way of controlling the engines (possibly as easy as starting a car from the engine compartment) while wearing a pressure suit.

Personally I can't see it happening.

Re:Progress control

[Tango42]

"I can't see a reason for there to be any electronic connection between the pressurised forward module and propulsion module of the progress spacecraft."

This kind of situation would be that reason. The progress craft was launched knowing it would be used for boosting the station's orbit, so they could have rigged something up on the ground as a backup.

Much better coverage

[DerekLyons]

TFA is somewhat out of date - and misses the point mostly.

Much better coverage can be found in Jim Oberg's essay at The Space Review.

I can name a few...

[gummyb34r]

1) Americans: at least some money was spent on peaceful activities 2) Russians: understood that betting on US poorly-engineered tin cans not floating at all (shuttles) is not a good idea, as it hurts planned deliveries of spare parts to the station, Russia will continue with China to explore the space. The US government seems liking the idea of nuking the shit out of this planet with Iran more than space exploration. I hope they do not seriously think of fleeding to Mars (with India) in order to avoid the effects of the nuclear winter.

I saw it

[From A Far Away Land]

I think I saw that broken sun cover when it flew over my house last week. What do you think from this picture?

Re:But the real question is....

[karnal]

I haven't ever played Gradius 4 except on the PS2, so I'm not sure what the perfect combo stuff was - care to enlighten me?

Oh yea, Gradius Gaiden is still my all-time favorite (got a japan copy, modded my ps1 just to play that game). Gradius 5 is a close second, with life force (not truly gradius, I know, but got me hooked) a 3rd.

Chart of ISS Height

[sam5550]

A chart of the height of the ISS:

Getting lower...

Re:Chart of ISS Height

[ScottLindner]

Great link. that's scary stuff to see it like that.

Now why can't they give it a nudge up again? I'm not a space or orbit engineer, why don't they boost it higher so it doesn't decay so rapidly?

Re:Chart of ISS Height

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

You can see the full history here

To answer the question, they could boost it somewhat higher, but have chosen not to. Lower orbits give leave more payload for visiting craft, although that must be weighed against extra fuel for reboosts. Reboosts also affect the launch windows for visiting craft. You might look at the graph the GP posted and think "OMG it's falling out of control" but that is not the case. It's at the current altitude because thats where they decided they wanted it. Reboosts are normally done with Progress and Shuttle engines, not the SM engines that failed.

They can't put it too high or it would be out of reach of the spacecraft that are supposed to service it. Even if they could reach it, you reduce the payload they can get there. Also, if you go too much higher you start hitting the lower edges of the Van Allen belts, which is bad for both the equipment and crew.

BTW: another good description of the recent failure can be found at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1

Re:Chart of ISS Height

[ScottLindner]

Thanks for the informative response. I did have the negative reaction that you mentioned even though I did notice the scale did not start at 0.0 elevation.

Is it normal for all satellites to be boosted, or only larger things like ISS, Hubble, etc?

Re:Chart of ISS Height

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

It's more about altitude and ballistic coefficient than size. With a some exceptions, un-manned satellites tend to be put in higher orbits, which don't encounter enough atmosphere to make them decay within their operational lifetime. Hubble (which is just barely within reach of the shuttle) is good for many years between reboosts. You might ask, "then why not put ISS at hubble altitude ?" but if it were, the shuttle wouldn't have the payload to bring up the pieces.

Even where atmospheric drag isn't a big factor, many satellites do have propulsion systems, because there are other things that perturb the orbits.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[WindBourne]

Yes it is. Mboverload has spoken out against ISS on a number of occaisions. Basically, his question is a pure troll.

As to the standard answer (including my own), is that it allowed us to develop in space. We have learned a great deal about how to develop equipment and how to stay there for a long period of time. We have made choices that were related to working with Russia (such as a low orbit), but overall, the ISS has been more of a win rather than a lose. Just as we had a high failure rate when getting to orbit, and then landing on a planet (moon, venus, mars, etc), staying in space is a hard thing to do. Now, we have learned how to survive close, we are ready to move on. It is time to go to the moon, or better to Mars. Only this time, with a station.

Oh No

[robertjw]

It's Skylab all over again.

Russian Successes.

[TubeSteak]

Oh! Right! We can test out space systems that would be useful for the real missions later on. Except that the station STILL relies on a bunch of Russian hardware that we already know is a smidge clunky.

Last I checked, it was the American built modules that had most of the problems.

From TFA:

The problems began on 19 April 2006, when the Russian Zvezda service module's main engines failed during a test. The failure may have been due to a sunshade cover that was not completely open, according to a station status report.

Gee... that sounds like a disaster. A sunshade cover wasn't fully open. That can't be fixed. Right?

Now, why does this matter at all? Because the "station software was not properly communicating with the Progress hardware". The Progress is a Russian built cargo craft, but guess who wrote the malfunctioning "station software."

Did you guess that it was an American company?
Bonus points if you said Boeing.

You can read their one of their press releases if you like
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020 930s.html

Re:Russian Successes.

[cmowire]

I'm more thinking about the Elektron module's endless troubles, which is really the part that's been getting in the way and acting up so far.

Oh, and there's also the whole reaction wheel thing, that's bad on the US side.

Much of the hardware on the US side that would have been nice to use long-term in space so that future designs could rely on it hasn't been launched yet (like the US version of Elektron) or has been canceled altogther (like the US Propulsion module).

Really, the problem I see isn't that the Russian hardware is any more or less reliable than the US hardware (Remember, the Russians have a better track record with the Soyuz not being grounded than the US has with the shuttle not being grounded) but that unless NASA wants to go through the trouble of dealing with the Russian space program again, it doesn't help if the Russian hardware works just fine because that doesn't give the NASA-specified hardware suppliers much space experience.

Sure, a sunshade cover would be great. Were NASA to not have been asleep at the wheel, an astronaut would have climbed into their zero-prebreathe suit and exited the minimal-atmospheric-loss airlock, and banged on it with a NASA Standard Hammer. But, given that NASA hasn't spend much money on improved spacesuits since the Apollo days, EVAs are scarry things and require much preparations.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[mboverload]

> Mboverload has spoken out against ISS on a number of occaisions

um...what? I dissed the space shuttle once?

Re:Don't bring it back, crash it into the MOON!

[From A Far Away Land]

I think the fuel cost would be too much, but it'd be interesting to calculate just now much fuel you'd need, and how much it would cost. I think a better solution is to just blow it up with an Enterprise replica like in Star Wreck In the Pirkinning. http://www.starwreck.com/

Re:Bring it back...

[jfmiller]

I am a tax payer, and I think we should end the war in Iraq 3 months early to pay for it.

JFMILLER

closer to 2-3 km per month

[j1m 5n0w]

However an assembly as large as the space station and typical for the requirement, loses over a mile of altitude a day in earth orbit and will burn up in the atmosphere within 1 year of ceasing to re-adjust its orbit higher.

ISS height data

Nobody cares

[EmbeddedJanitor]

In the 60's, the Space Race was a nice way to "win" in the cold war. People cared because it was all linked to national pride and semi-justified the fight against communism.

There is no national pride in an international space station. In fact it looks like the opposite. There's also nothing new and it all looks like been there, done that.

The only time most people will care is when it de-orbits and makes a nice firework display.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[igb]

Actually, the failure rate of the manned missions NASA did --- Mercury, Gemini, Apollo --- was incredibly low. No one was killed in flight. Very few missions were total failures --- even 13 managed a manned orbit of the moon, which is hardly a common occurrance. The programme went from sub-orbital hops to a manned moon mission in ten years. These days NASA has a far higher death rate, can't organise coffee for a meeting in less than ten years and has achieved nothing in terms of manned flight since Skylab.

ian

mod parent up

[not-enough-info]

Mod parent up for correct usage of Bernoulli trials and calculations for binomial random variables.

Re:Bring it back...

[not-enough-info]

It would be way cheaper and easier to send up a bunch of "experts" to figure the sucker out rather than return it to Earth.

Are you implying that we send the experts up to the station so that we can be rid of them when it de-orbits?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[StarfishOne]

And with time passing by, NASA is losing more and more people (retirement, etc.) who were actually around during the time of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo .. and thus valuable ('hands-on') experience.

I don't know if it's completely true, but a few years ago I have also heard the story that many of the data tapes from those days cannot be read anymore, losing valuable data. The building plans of the Saturn V are also said to be gone. =(

Re:Aim it at Iran !

[JollyFinn]

But there is problem with export regulations of exporting such high tech equipment to Iran...

Re:Bring it back...

[ti-coune]

well then the ISS is not in space: at 350km or so you still have around 85% of gravity on earth. Nothing close to micro-gravity.

Not really

[Malakusen]

If the Europeans had had the technology to send robotic missions to the new world at 1% of the cost of sending manned missions, it would have made perfect sense for them to do so first.

"What the hell? Those aren't the Indies, there's no gold and spice, and all they have are buffalo and strange savages. Why bother going all the way across the ocean for that?"

Would have been a lot like how most people look at colonizing the Moon and Mars: doesn't seem like there's anything overtly useful there, so why bother going?

Of course that point doesn't apply to space exploration, but I'm just pointing out that it's not a given that exploration in blissful ignorance was going to end with the Europeans benefiting.

I don't know that it doesn't apply to space exploration. There may be, at the risk of sounding sensational, alien virii out there capable of doing our race in, just sitting in stasis on the Moon, or in the asteroid belts, or stuck to a comet. Not saying it's likely, or even a good reason to avoid going, but it is somewhat of a possibility.

We can't do that!

[Malakusen]

Don't send humans, send simple, tough life-forms and see what comes back a million or a 100 million years hence. From our planet a cloud of spores, little spaceships loaded of virii and bacteria, should burst forth travelling out on trajectories to collide with other heavenly bodies, just to see what grows there

Two problems... 1.) an alien race comes here and kicks our ass for sending biological weapons to their planet that wiped out half their population cause they had no immunities to it, or 2.) 100 million years from now the Cold and Influenzi races come back and go to war with the Cockroche and Ante races who've inherited the world from us.

Of course, scenario 2 doesn't worry me too much because humanity would be dead by that time, and scenario 1 doesn't bother me because I find it kind of funny to picture, and because I'll be dead by the time it happens.

Give it time

[Malakusen]

Our leaders and the Russian and Chinese leaders seem to be trying their level best to stir shit up again and start a second Cold War, and the Chinese have a space program that (comparatively) is progressing nicely. I could see us with a real second space race within the next decade, provided we don't blow ourselves all to hell sometime sooner.

I can definitely imagine the national pride issue coming back to space travel and exploration. Of course, the downside of that is that it'd be militaristic space travel, which makes our global suicide that much more likely.

Hold it, 99.9% of Space Junk is from Humans???

[mykepredko]

The obvious question is, who or what put in the remaining 0.1% up there?

Enquiring minds want to know!

myke

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[afidel]

Actually the complete loss percentage is right on with the original estimates for the Shuttle program. We have lost one flight to technical difficulties (Challenger was a political fuckup, almost every engineer involved said not to launch), which is in line with the original estimate of 1% loss. Now the CEV is a better design with several decades of proven technology behind it so it has a much lower expected loss percentage, but I don't think a new from scratch program started today would be much better, getting to space safely is HARD.

Re:Bring it back...

[mfrank]

You are operating at an extremely high level of ignorance.

Re:Bring it back...

[WindBourne]

if and when it fails, to break it apart and use it in conjuntion with the new private space labs that will be coming. To send it back to earth would be a crime.

Re:Bring it back...

[D-Fens]

Yeah, let's turn it into a derelict spacecraft, then re-enter it 50 years later. I don't see any problems with that scenario...