Space Station Partners Bicker Over Closure Date

jcdick1 writes "The current partners in the ISS are in discussion regarding the closure date of the space station, even though it still has not been fully assembled. 'The United States insists it will pull out of the station at the end of 2015 while Russia wants its life prolonged, said European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain at an astronautics congress in Hyderabad, southern India. NASA administrator Michael Griffin has told space station partners that the US agency has no plans for "utilization and exploitation" of the science research lab for more than five years after it is completed, Dordain said.'"

Comments

Let me get this straight

[christurkel]

Okay, it'll take until 2010 to finish the station then NASA will use it only for five years before pulling out. With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?

Re:Let me get this straight

[AKAImBatman]

With all due respect NASA, are you fucking nuts?

You're making the assumption that the ISS should have been built in the first place. Allow me to reassure you, it should not have. The original plan for Space Station Freedom was as a LEO rendezvous point for lunar-bound astronauts. The shuttle was the first stage, the station was the second stage, and a lunar-transfer vehicle would have been the third stage. (Actually, the shuttle was originally only supposed to be transportation. The heavy lifting was supposed to be done by the Saturn V. Instead, Nixon demanded that the Shuttle do both. But I digress.)

When Congress saw the price tag, however, they balked. They told NASA that they needed additional international funding if they the support of congress. So NASA talked with a few other countries (including the now democratic Russia) about getting the funding they needed. Russia told NASA that they would only get money and support if the station was located in an orbit that was easier for Russian spacecraft to reach. Of course, that same orbit made the station worthless (fuel-wise) as a lunar-staging point.

There's more to the story after that, but suffice it to say that the station shouldn't exist. It was a political boondoggle that never truly met anyone's needs. It mostly just hangs there showing the flag. Once the space shuttle is retired, there will be no way of properly maintaining the ISS. If new vehicles aren't developed to reboost the ISS regularly (e.g. robotic boosters) the ISS will simply fall into the atmosphere and burn up.

Now before you decide to interject with, "But we've already payed hundreds of millions to built it! It must be useful for something!" allow me to point you to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

Re:Let me get this straight

[vlm]

You got the first part right. The design for both was continually downsized until the only purpose of both the shuttle and the station is to exist for each other, like some crazy love story.

You got the second part wrong. If you put the same managers whom ran the shuttle and station into the ground (literally) in charge of an unmanned probe, they'll "optimize" the probe to save money by removing all the scientific instruments, and launch in the wrong, yet more convenient, orbit, then remove funding to receive the signals if it gets there anyway. In fact the station and shuttle programs should be kept around to attract all the pointy haired bosses away from the useful scientific programs...

The station is nothing but a list of "could haves". Could have put it in a good orbit to use as a waystation for interplanetary flight, but that cost too much, so we got an awful orbit to appease the USSR. Could have had a large enough habitation module to staff large numbers of problem solvers rather than a tiny handful of robotic procedural astronauts, but that cost too much, so no scientists or engineers can fit onboard. Could have put useful scientific instruments on the station, but that cost too much, so all we got is a stethoscope and not a heck of a lot else. Could have put some fascinating communications stuff up there, but that cost too much, so we got nothing. Could have made it a continuing program of expansion and R&D and evolve the current station into something we currently can't imagine instead of a one shot stunt, but that cost too much. By the time everything that could be cut was cut, there was nothing left but pork contracts for subcontractors.

We need a "real" station and a "real" launcher program, but the folks currently in charge will not provide it, so don't throw more good money after bad, junk those programs while we're ahead.

Re:Wasteful Government Republicans

[jellomizer]

Wow blame the republicans. I think it is more of an issue of blaming americans. We have gotten to a point where we no longer Quantify things but Mathitize things. Everything needs a solid number next to it, if not then it isn't there. So for Space we see how much it costs but not the benefit because there is little numbers attached to the benefits. The Russians who are in a far more corrupt nation then we are know the value of space travel. But we just don't we are so focused on the here and now and not to the future.

So glad we spent all that money on it :/

[RichPowers]

Lowball estimates indicate that NASA will spend $53 billion on the ISS from 1993 to the end of its life. This doesn't include the cost of maintaining the space shuttle or R&D from Space Station Freedom (the canned station from the 1980s). So the US will use the station for 5 years after completion -- and what of serious scientific value will be accomplished during that time?

The ISS isn't worth the cost. Think of the probes and orbital observatories NASA could've built using the ISS budget. Those things give us far more insight into the universe. Hell, some of the early ISS literature proclaimed the station would pay for through the leasing of "microgravity manufacturing" compartments to various companies...please.

No one should be surprised about this; the project was a waste before it even started.

Re:my 2 cents

[gclef]

I can think of a couple, mostly around the idea of a lunar transport, which would dock with the station:

* A lunar transport ship should never need to re-enter the atmosphere. Why would you want to drag re-entry heat shields all the way out to the moon?

* A lunar transport ship would save each supply launch the cost of building (and then discarding) another system to soft-land on the moon.

* Scheduling the docking of a lunar transport with shuttle/progress rocket lifts would be very difficult. If you could, instead, stage the supplies at a station, that would make the scheduling of the lunar transport runs and the supply launches more (not completely) independent.

* If you eventually end up with more than one destination (L5? Please?), you don't have to have separate launches to supply each, just launch one set of supplies and split them up in orbit for each destination.

Re:Summary

[Rei]

Most of its components are rated for 20-30 years. Now, of course, some of its components have already been orbiting for a good while, but even still, judging from the Mars Rovers... ;)

It's idiotic. Basically, the US made a committment to build it, then decided most of the way through that it had new toys it wanted to make. Rather than back out with it almost built and a large fortune spent on it, they're going to spend a small fortune to finish it so they're not breaking any committments, and then when it gets to the relatively cheap phase (maintenance), they're going to ditch it. It's the equivalent of me spending all my time and money building a house, and when it finally gets livable, burning it down so I can use the lot to make a tennis court. Idiotic.

As though we wouldn't do the exact same process with a moon base. It's like the ISS, only... on the moon! We have dirt to play with, plus 1/6th gravity, and for that benefit, it costs ten times more to get people and supplies there and back. Does anyone really think that we won't likewise get almost done with a moonbase and then decide that it's another "boondoggle" and abandon our efforts there, too? People make careers and make the history books by succeeding in their projects, not the projects of the generation before them. So we flap and wave like a flag in the wind.

Sure, the research on the ISS probably doesn't justify it's construction cost. But it certainly justifies its maintenance costs. Building it and letting it burn is a mockery of responsible planning. It also should be a wakeup call that we need new budgetary planning procedures in congress that lets all of the funding for a project be allocated in advance and placed in a trust, with congress and administrators only able to pull out of it if pre-specified milestones fail to be met. I.e., ISS would likely have been cancelled long ago when it failed to meet financial and time milestones, but if it had made it this long, the maintenence funding would already be in place.

Re:Summary

[tsotha]

Sure, the research on the ISS probably doesn't justify it's construction cost. But it certainly justifies its maintenance costs.

Not by a long shot. Exactly what earth-shattering research are they goning to do? More high school science experiments?