Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Panel Advises Longer Life For Space Station

Posted by samzenpus on from the if-it-isn't-broke dept.

suraj.sun writes "A presidential panel reviewing the US space program has found that the United States needs to boost NASA's budget by $1.5 billion to fly the last seven shuttle missions and should extend International Space Station operations through 2020. The panel also proposed adding an extra, eighth shuttle flight to help keep the station supplied and narrow an expected 5-7 year gap between the time the shuttle fleet is retired and a new US spaceship is ready to fly."

19 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. No they didn't. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Shuttle/ISS subcommittee headed by Dr Sally Ride has presented three options:

    1. Do nothing, let the shuttle stop flying at the end of 2010 and let the station be de-orbited at the end of 2016.
    2. Fly 1 more mission, and still de-orbit the station at the end of 2016.
    3. Extend station operations through to the end of 2020 and fly more shuttle missions to support it.

    The options explain how to do it, what funding will be required, and the consequences on other programs.

    The President and the new NASA Administrator will take these options and decide which to implement, depending on what funding they can get from Congress.

    The committee is not chartered with making any recommendations, and the options are not final until the report is released, around Aug 31.

    You can give your opinions to the committee via the website: http://hsf.nasa.gov/

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:No they didn't. by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't there a fourth option? Namely- use Soyuz to transport people from now on

      Without Shuttle to provide the cargo upmass and reboosts - there isn't a fourth option. Soyuz and Progress can't do it, ATV won't fly often enough, and HTV is still largely in the vaporware category (and even if it was flying, wouldn't add sufficient performance).

    2. Re:No they didn't. by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, those modules probably cost significantly more than a single shuttle launch (even as stupid expensive as that is). In fact a quick search shows Japan sunk more than $700M into the CAM unit with about another $100M from NASA for experiment modules to be placed within it. Even without any other involvement we are up to $800M in sunk costs, the incremental cost for a shuttle launch is ~$60M.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:No they didn't. by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't there a fourth option? Namely- use Soyuz to transport people from now on

      Without Shuttle to provide the cargo upmass and reboosts - there isn't a fourth option. Soyuz and Progress can't do it, ATV won't fly often enough, and HTV is still largely in the vaporware category [...]

      Except that actually most ISS reboosts are done by Progress, and the Shuttle in fact is pretty useless for them.
      Quoting http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=1476.0 :

      "Most reboosts use the Progress attitude control thrusters, however larger burns are done using the Progress main engines.
      When there is no Progress docked to the Service Module (SM) aft, the SM's two (or just one of the two) main engines could also
      be used to perform a reboost. Finally, the Orbiter [i.e., the Shuttle] does generally perform a reboost of ISS during a docked
      mission. Due to the fact that a majority of the Orbiter's thrusters cannot be used when docked (due to concerns of plume impacts
      on ISS), they don't really get much more delta V out of the Orbiter than they do the Progress or SM. The largest benefit is
      that it uses Orbiter propellants, not the limited supply that is maintained on ISS."


      Or, if you don't like that source, nasaspaceflight.com:
      "Generally ISS reboosts are performed by the Progress resupply ship thrusters"

      So no, a lack of Shuttle flights will not result in a lack of ISS reboosts. And now that they can recycle their water,
      fresh water isn't that high a priority for cargo flights any more either. It'll mean a couple more transporter flights (and,
      someone will have to pay for those of course) but the ISS can survive without any Shuttle flights at all without any problems.

  2. Re:Nope by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ISS is the most amazing laboratory ever built. Vast amounts of awesome science is done on it. Thing is, NASA is so completely inept at communicating this to the public that even space geeks, like myself, have no idea what the hell they do up there.

    The ISS program people will occasionally say "I could talk to you all day long about the great science we're doing on the ISS" and THEN THEY DON'T. Maybe if they talked "all day" about it now and then people wouldn't refer to their project as "busy work" for the space program.

    But if you don't care about science, maybe you only care about exploration, then I guess you have to go with the argument that the lessons we've learnt about maintaining space systems on the space station will be invaluable for going to Mars.. and we're definitely not ready yet.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Re:They forgot the eBay option by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, there's ITAR restrictions on selling the station to anyone who would conceivably want it.

    Can you believe that? The Russians have daily access to the ISS but selling it to them would be an ITAR issue.

    Not that there's any evidence they are willing or able to buy it.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Re:Decommission Shuttle at the station by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

    It'd stop working about about a month or two and that'd just be more facility for the Russians to spend time repairing.

    The Shuttle simply isn't speced for long term exposure to space. The fact that it doesn't fall apart for the 14 days that it is typically on-orbit is a result of constant care and attention on the ground.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. option 4: the US quits participating by tlambert · · Score: 2, Informative

    option 4: the US quits participating, and they leave it in orbit and other countries continue to fly to it and to use it, as they currently do.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:option 4: the US quits participating by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US has the responsibility to deorbit it. Whether they do that in 2016 or 2020 is a question of budget. The only way to not deorbit it would be transfer ownership and the new owner would have to be ITAR-compatible and be able to prove that they could deorbit it when they are done with it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  6. Headed by Sally Ride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You do mean former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, right? You know, where it says "CHAIRMAN", it lists his name and everything.

    Secondly, they haven't presented any options, yet. The report isn't done. This article pretty clearly states some of the constraints under which they've working, but some Slashdot Editing Magic(TM) has turned the panel's statement that ~"NASA needs a bigger budget and slightly longer timeframe to fly the flights already on schedule now" into what you see at the top of your browser.

  7. Re:Decommission Shuttle at the station by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they're going to decommission a shuttle, why not leave it at the station?

    Because it will die twenty odd days after docking if used as redundant facilities, forty odd days if nearly completely powered down. Even if ISS could power Shuttle (which it currently cannot), the Shuttle uses canisters to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere rather than a molecular sieve. (And ventilation hoses cannot be run through the hatches for safety reasons.)
     
    There's more problems than those, but those are the biggies.

  8. Re:unNope by diamondsw · · Score: 2, Informative

    > the lives of seven astronauts

    Hey now, don't drag Columbia into this. If anything, it was abundantly clear that mission had NOTHING to do with the ISS - it wasn't even vaguely in the same orbit.

    Your other points are good, and are immediately dismissed by this hyperbole.

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  9. VASIMR by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Near the end of 2008, Ad Astra and NASA signed an agreement to build a 200kw flight article and test it at ISS.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  10. Re:Decommission Shuttle at the station by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

    Soyuz capsules, of course. Same way everybody else on the station gets back to Earth.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  11. space shuttle cost by David+Jao · · Score: 4, Informative

    the incremental cost for a shuttle launch is ~$60M.

    NASA says the cost per shuttle launch is $450 million.

  12. Third (and final) meeting being broadcast Thursday by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those interested, the third and final meeting will be broadcast Thursday, running from 8am - 4pm EDT:

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/NASA-TV-HD
    http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=14237
    http://twitter.com/search?q=%23nasahsf

    I think the Thursday meeting will be the most interesting one, as it'll include the presentations from the "Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit" subgroup. Some options the subgroup is studying include not just the "Moon Base" plan, but also plans for going directly to Mars ASAP, as well as a "Flexible path" option which would involve manned trips to destinations in shallow gravity wells, like L1, asteroids and Phobos.

    The videos from the Tuesday and Wednesday meetings aren't available yet, but you can find out much of what's been discussed already at the following links:

    HSF Committee Public Meeting in Alabama - Reviews
    HSF Committee Public Meeting in Houston - Reviews
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17962.0

  13. Re:One has to wonder... by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why no other country had succeeded yet in developing technologies that could mimic what the space shuttle could do in order to supply the "International" Space station after the United States retire the shuttles. (with the exception of Russia)

    Sally Ride mentioned this in her Augustine Committee presentation, but other countries do have this tech, and will have it ready to service the ISS in a few years. There's also the COTS options as well. I thought it was kind of bizarre when Sally Ride immediately said afterwards that she didn't think they would be able to reduce the gap, without explaining her rationale.

    Anyways, here's the options:

    * Russian Soyuz
    * ESA's ATV
    * Japan's HTV
    * SpaceX Dragon
    * Orbital Taurus II

    There's also the EELVs (Delta IV and Atlas V), but the designs for delivering to the ISS haven't been funded yet. The estimates are that those would be ready for delivering humans to the ISS in 3-4 years, and could presumably deliver cargo much earlier.

  14. Re:WTF isnt a space station permanent? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

    The modular approach you describe is more-or-less what Bigelow Aerospace is doing with their private space stations. It'll also be flying at a higher orbit than the ISS, so should suffer less from atmospheric drag problems.

  15. Re:Nope by tpheiska · · Score: 2, Informative

    The ISS is the most amazing laboratory ever built. Vast amounts of awesome science is done on it. Thing is, NASA is so completely inept at communicating this to the public that even space geeks, like myself, have no idea what the hell they do up there.

    Your post got me wondering.. I had no idea either. A little google search gave me this interesting list.

    --
    "wahts woring iwth my tyoping?"