How Long Can the ISS Last?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Friday September 20, 2013 @10:50PM from the delaying-the-heat-death-of-this-part-of-the-universe dept.

R3d M3rcury writes with the story that "NASA and Boeing, along with other nations, are studying the feasibility of keeping the International Space Station in orbit until 2020 and possibly until 2028 — the 30 year anniversary of the launch of the first module." From the article: "To assess the long-term structural health of the station, Boeing engineers developed detailed computer models based on NASA's projected use -- the expected stresses caused by future dockings, reboosts, crew activity and thermal cycles -- and combined that with actual data from on-board accelerometers and strain gauges. ... "What we're looking at is theoretical crack growth," Pamela McVeigh, the engineer in charge of the Boeing structural analysis in Houston, told CBS News. "So the failure mode would be you'd have a crack beginning, probably (at) a bolt hole, and the crack would grow to another edge. So you'd lose like a flange on a C-beam, or an I-beam. The stiffness of your structure would then change, the bolt hole you that you were growing the crack out of, now that bolt wouldn't be effective."

29 of 112 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I seriously doubt we'd build the ISS now by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-20 22:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

The US have given up on space. The NASA budget is treated as pork, with no thought of genuine long-term progress.
1. Re:I seriously doubt we'd build the ISS now by ShanghaiBill · 2013-09-21 00:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Why did it have to be assembled in tiny pieces instead of using big components with heavy rockets like Skylab was? If the ISS was made of big components with a heavy lift rocket, it could have been assembled in only 5 Saturn V launches (at about $1 billion a launch) or 1 Sea Dragon launch. Reviving a heavy lift rocket program would have paid for itself.
  The whole point of the ISS was to give the space shuttle something to do. Using heavy lift rockets would have defeated its purpose.
2. Re:I seriously doubt we'd build the ISS now by Teancum · 2013-09-21 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I seriously doubt that a Sea Dragon launch could have sent up the ISS, but I would agree that sending up 5-10 Saturn V launches would have most certainly done the trick. If anything, shutting down the Saturn V program was a huge mistake... when viewed in hindsight.
  Every single mission that was accomplished with the Shuttle program (including sending up 7-man crews) could have been done with a Saturn V and done by far and away cheaper as well. Improvements in materials, guidance computers, and an evolutionary design change over time as has happened with the Soyuz rocket and spacecraft would have made the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft a very modern and versatile platform to continue a real space exploration program and maintained at least the capability of going to the Moon as an option instead of having to re-invent the wheel again now that that capability has long since been lost.
  What would have been lost, perhaps, is the need for international cooperation that went into building the ISS, but even that is not certain. Much of the basis for building the ISS came from the Apollo-Soyuz mission, where exchanges of technical information already were happening between the Soviet space program and NASA.
  Even funnier is how the test stand originally built to handle a production run of over 100 Saturn V vehicles is now being used by SpaceX in Texas for testing the Merlin engines. That was the projection done by Werner Von Braun, and contracts were signed to have a contingency of building that many vehicles.
  I do think the ISS would look quite a bit different than the current structure had it been built using Saturn V/I/Apollo hardware, although the modular approach would likely have been done still. It would likely have been an upgraded version of the Skylab modules, and I would even dare say that the Skylab backup that is currently in the Smithsonian very likely would have been a part of or even would have become the core American module for the ISS. It definitely would have been much roomier for the astronauts in the ISS with Saturn V launched modules.
  Unfortunately, that is not the path that history took.
Urgh. by dnwq · 2013-09-20 23:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

God, we're going to keep that thing up there until it disintegrates and kill everyone aboard, aren't we? Just because no politician wants to be the one to pull the plug, even though they would hardly vote for an ISS today. Then we'll pat ourselves on the back for humanity's heroism and then go right back to fighting over the pale blue dot.
Why not use it as a site to build the next one? by GrpA · 2013-09-20 23:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

It would be nice if they could use the existing one as a site-office to begin building an even bigger one with a longer life expectancy. Use better materials, a piece at a time, and start building a replacement.
14 years isn't far from now. So what then? Start from scratch again? Seems a shame when they could begin stockpiling for the next generation and have it well underway by the time it comes to decommission the existing ISS.
GrpA

--
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
1. Re:Why not use it as a site to build the next one? by dbIII · 2013-09-20 23:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Since it's modular it should be a matter of replacing a bit at a time, barring the sort of politics that stopped such a thing being done with Mir, which also had some relatively new modules.
2. Re:Why not use it as a site to build the next one? by AikonMGB · 2013-09-21 00:21 · Score: 2
  
  The ISS's inclination is actually as high as it is to allow the Russian launch vehicles to be able to make the trip; the use of the STS merely capped how polar they could go.
3. Re:Why not use it as a site to build the next one? by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-21 01:30 · Score: 2
  
  China is building a space station. They would have joined the ISS project if the US hadn't blocked them. It's basically US pride that is holding everything back.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Why not use it as a site to build the next one? by Teancum · 2013-09-21 02:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  China is building a space station. They would have joined the ISS project if the US hadn't blocked them. It's basically US pride that is holding everything back.
  It wasn't just the U.S. government that wasn't interested in having China join. There is also a concern by both Russia and America about the quality of any potential modules and spacecraft that would be attaching itself to the ISS in any docking procedure... and it was Roscosmos that would have taken the largest burden for such activities as the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft would have most easily docked with the Russian segment rather than conforming to the American docking ports.
  It was much more than pride at stake here, and while NASA officials were certainly the most vocal in opposition to Chinese participation, there were many other obstacles to getting Chinese astronauts on the ISS. If anything, it was also Chinese pride that sort of shot the whole project down too as they didn't want to be treated as a junior partner in the endeavor as well.
  If the ESA and Roscosmos had wanted the Chinese Space Agency involved in the ISS, I'm sure it would have happened. There are other countries involved besides just Russia and America.
5. Re:Why not use it as a site to build the next one? by Dereck1701 · 2013-09-21 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sadly no, they are not going to be attaching a BA-330 to the station they'll be attaching a BEAM module. Basically a closet for storage & testing built on Bigelows inflatable designs. I initially held out the same hopes when it first hit the news that a Bigelow module was going to be attached to ISS, but in hind site it was obviously never going to happen. First off if Bigelow was able to nearly double the volume (Ok 40% increase, still a lot) of ISS with a single launch and a few hundred million dollars NASA would have to answer a whole lot of unpleasant questions regarding the costs for ISS's construction. I imagine that even if Bigelow offered them a BA-330 free of charge (which isn't as crazy as it sounds, think of the PR) I doubt they would have accepted it. Second of all NASA is crazy careful, they won't allow a bag of potato chips without 3 months of testing and redesign. So I highly doubt they would allow a technology that has never had on orbit testing to be attached to ISS, their flagship manned space mission.
Regardless of longevity. by wjcofkc · 2013-09-20 23:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Regardless of when the ISS is retired, I can only hope that the powers that be have the good sense to push it into a higher orbit. Someday space travel will be accessible and we will have orbital museums and when that time comes we will regret a good number of historical items the were de-orbited. Honestly we should have kept and boosted into higher orbit one of the last space shuttle launches along with an external tank, since the external tanks are perfectly capable of making it to orbit. Basically wrap them in shielding and stow them away in high orbit until their time as accessible historical artifacts comes. There is a lot that will simply have to be re-created as mock ups, considering the sheer importance of this early age in space travel, it won't be the same but will be better than nothing. In the fifth grade I had the surreal honor of holding a piece of the Berlin wall as it was passed around class. I will never forget the sense of historical understanding that washed over me. If it had been a replica, I would have still found sentiment, but it would not have been the same.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
1. Re:Regardless of longevity. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-21 00:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Okay, how? This "shielding" you speak of, of "high orbit"... that sounds like it takes more work than building the thing in the first place! The cracks they speak of are just thermal fatigue cracking that exists in all materials, just in Earth orbit it is extremely rapid.
2. Re:Regardless of longevity. by CohibaVancouver · 2013-09-21 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There was no reason to bring the shuttles back once we knew they weren't going to be used again
  And what about the little matter of the crews on board the Orbiters? We weren't bringing the Orbiters back, we were bringing the CREWS back.
3. Re:Regardless of longevity. by 0123456 · 2013-09-21 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  Movement in space is expensive.
  Movement in space is cheap compared to getting things into space, if you're not in a hurry. Stick an ion engine on the back, let it run for a couple of years (with no-one on board, due to the radiation belts it has to pass through), and wait for it to get to L5.
4. Re:Regardless of longevity. by Teancum · 2013-09-21 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  It isn't as if using ion engines on the ISS is a new concept. The idea has been kicking around for some time and mainly needs some funding. The idea to put one of those engines on the ISS has been discussed simply to maintain the current orbit as it needs to be boosted periodically anyway.
  I would even go so far as to suggest that the required delta-v to put the ISS at L5 has likely been already applied simply to keep the station where it is at instead of crashing down back onto the Earth over its current lifetime. A similar kind of energy will need to be applied over the next 15 or so years anyway, so why not build a system that can also work as an end-of-life termination system too?
  Another issue with the ISS is that it is so huge that any effort to deorbit the station will most certainly result in a debris field regardless of how much effort you put into breaking it up prior to re-entry. Even splashing it down has a great many complications where it might even be cheaper and certainly offer much less risk to people here on the Earth if it was pushed up to a higher orbit as well. There is definitely going to be a cost to deorbit above and beyond just the delta-v issues.
5. Re:Regardless of longevity. by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2013-09-21 19:35 · Score: 2
  
  There are 2 reasons for that change:
  1) Generational dreams change along with technology. Every world-changing invention has gone through an initial several decades of being awe-inspiring (with the periodic tragedy) before it became commonplace enough for rich people to do it for fun. I'm in my mid-late 30s, and that's what manned trips into space have qualified as since I was a little kid: no otherwise-impossible scientific advancements, two full crews of brilliant people killed (one with at least half the country's schoolkids watching) -- and now it's an experience for companies to sell to the ultra-rich.
  I mean, if someone came up to you, said "I have a project that won't actually achieve anything we couldn't do otherwise, will get a couple dozen people killed, and the results will primarily become a great way for the ultra-rich to spend their money" would *you* be excited?
  2) Most people's interest in devoting money/energy to long-term grand projects tends to fluctuate with their personal circumstances. When they feel they can secure their family's basic comfort long-term, easily pay for necessities & their taxes, and see clear benefits in their community from those taxes, they're *far* more likely to be willing to have some of that tax money go to projects that *might* pay off in a few decades. That's how it was from the 40s through the 70s, and to a lesser extent, in the 80s/90s.
  When they're worried about randomly losing their job & not being able to quickly find another, know an unexpected crisis could financially ruin them, have to stretch a bit to pay for necessities plus the taxes, and their community seems to perpetually struggle despite the taxes, they're going to want every dime to go towards either their family's present/future (including entertainment that lets them forget for a few hours each night) or towards community resources their family uses, not projects that *might* pay off in the far future. That's how it has been to varying degrees since the dot-bomb crash, especially since the post-9/11 military/security expansion began.
  
  --
  Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Where on earth? I'll tell you where by dbIII · 2013-09-20 23:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Where on Earth did you get the idea that NASA wasn't interested in a space station?
Western Australia July 11 1979
Or if you prefer, the 8th of February 1974 off the coast of San Diego when the last mission finished.
They showed so much of a lack of interest that they threw a working space station away despite having enough Saturn V stages to move it into a higher orbit and five years to do it in.
Re:Where on earth? I'll tell you where by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-20 23:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually there was excessive atmospheric heating that brought it down early. But even still, in the post Vietnam era every NASA program was being massively cut and NASA didn't know how to react to that.
Re:Other nations? by SJHillman · 2013-09-21 00:25 · Score: 2

I prefer mega-nation, although stagnation might be closer at this point in time.
It will never be scrapped by mbone · 2013-09-21 00:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

It may be sent elsewhere, but the ISS is going to be around for a long, long time. Remember, the Russians own a good chunk of it, and they don't believe in giving up on functional assets. If NASA ever is forced out, watch the US modules being transferred to the Russians for $ 1 or something like that.
1. Re:It will never be scrapped by Teancum · 2013-09-21 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  What deorbited Mir was not really a lack of funds but rather political pressure from NASA and the U.S. government who didn't want to have Roscosmos distracted by Mir. There was MirCorp who was providing funding to keep Mir going and had even sent up a crew of cosmonauts to get it prepared for other visitors.
  That said, the Russian segments of the ISS were intended to be a part of Mir 2 (the second iteration of that station) and there definitely was a sense of closure with Mir anyway on the part of the Russian government. It was also not the first and certainly won't be the last space station put up by the Russian government.
Which parts? by lennier1 · 2013-09-21 00:58 · Score: 2

Looking at the track record of the Mir station, the Russian-made parts will probably far outlive ours.
Re:Other nations? by rossdee · 2013-09-21 01:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Boeing and NASA are from the USA. The other contributors to the ISS are from other nations
keep it going as long as possible by usuallylost · 2013-09-21 01:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hopefully they continue to work on it and refurbish it. If we are ever going to have a robust long term presence in space we are going to have to learn how to build reliable structures that can be repaired and maintained over the long term. The IIS seems like a perfect test bed for that sort of development and we already have a huge sunk cost so why not use it?
1. Re:keep it going as long as possible by kermidge · 2013-09-21 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  There is a tendency on the part of many to consider that designing, building, and maintaining structures in space to be a done deal - simply order up what you want and that's it. What we are finding after all these years is that prolonged exposure of materials to space is still often a matter of unforeseen consequences. While experimental work on Earth and various theories of how materials behave have been useful even if only to present the range of possibilities we are continually finding new behaviours.
  We've long known of cold welding yet keep finding new ways it happens, and amongst differing materials we hadn't suspected of the behavior. Ditto embrittlement. Then there are the slew of changes owing to constant change in dimension owing to temperature, complicated when disparate materials are joined in some fashion, with accompanying changes in the materials' characteristics - tensile strength and so on. Then there's degradation of performance, such as with solar cells. So what the Boeing study is doing makes much sense. This is real space engineering and is about as geeky as it gets.
  Although it would cost more to get there, it'd be nice to be able to boost the ISS into higher orbit. There are problems with that, one being zones of debris, the other the inner Van Allen belt. A good project would be to drain it. The station is in good position to do so. If that were started soon, it could be done about the time the station is scheduled for de-orbit, and would go a long way towards the argument for keeping it going - presuming that there are no major problems at the materials end.
  Research. It's not a simple matter of setting up some stuff on a work bench. Experiments have to be packaged to fit space allotted, all relevant measures for power, environmental control, out-gassing and related containment all have to be worked out ahead of time before a project gets sent up. Last I looked there is a slew of interesting stuff in the pipeline. There are some projects where research has advanced enough for small-scale manufacture as well, for some materials and pharmaceuticals.
  There are a lot of dormant satellites in GEO that are unusable, often due to being out of fuel to control attitude or because they need minor repair to antennas, gyros, and circuitry. If there were enterprise to develop and build manned and unmanned service vehicles, the ISS could be used as a service garage and gas station. Longer term, with it or it's successor, it would be in a good position to aid in dealing with processing of asteroid material - although that could perhaps be done as well in lunar orbit and on Luna's surface. Much boils down to "it depends." Point is, though, there is a lot of useful work that could be done _now_ that ISS would be suited for. Oh, and there's also the matter of using it as a base to aid in the removal of unwanted orbital debris, a task whose importance is difficult to overstate, collision odds notwithstanding.
  All the above is amenable to fairly straightforward engineering analysis. The gross difficulty is that those in charge of the purse strings tend to be not only ignorant of the issues, resistant to learning about them, and pursuing various agendas that are not based fully in reality, but rather on emotion, religion, graft, and other assorted idiocy.
  It's one thing to have an intelligent discussion of varying views and priorities based on science and engineering realities; it's another entirely to make sweeping pronunciamentos that stem from un-examined and un-supportable supposition and prejudice.
  And yes, for various reasons, I think the Chinese should have been, and should now be, included. There are certainly some risks but I think they're higher for the exclusion. Realistically it may be too late. Damage has been done and not so easily made good.
  The decision on when to de-orbit ISS - and of any dismantling beforehand - ought to be an engineering decision.
Another viewpoint by PNutts · 2013-09-21 02:38 · Score: 4, Funny

The stiffness of your structure would then change, the bolt hole you that you were growing the crack out of, now that bolt wouldn't be effective.
That's what she said.
Re:Do we seem a little too risk averse these days? by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-09-21 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Bah!
DeltaV to deorbit ISS - ~180 m/s
DeltaV to move ISS to L4/L5 - ~3160 m/s.
Preview, you fool, always preview!

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What happened to VASIMR by fritsd · 2013-09-21 05:24 · Score: 2

What happened to the NASA/Ad Astra plan to launch an experimental 200 kW VASIMR, strap it to the ISS, and use it to boost the station to higher orbit?

Has it just not happened yet because it doesn't actually work, or because you'd need more solar panels for the required energy, or what?

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Russians by Dereck1701 · 2013-09-21 08:32 · Score: 2

I don't know how long NASA will want to keep ISS in space (hopefully longer than the stated end of mission parameters though) but the Russians have already stated their desire that if NASA does decide they want to shutdown/deorbit ISS they are going to try to detach their modules and start a "new" Russian space complex, OPSEK (Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex). Personally I'm a bit confused, even the oldest parts on ISS are only 15 years old. Does equipment really degrade that fast in orbit? I would think electronics would be the first to go, but they should be fairly modular making most of them easy to replace. Even if an entire module became structurally/electrically unsound, in many cases detaching it from the station and deorbiting it while keeping the rest of the complex active would seem quite easy. The only exceptions to this may be a few of the core modules or nodes, even those would not be out of the question, it would just be a question of sending up a new node or core module and moving unaffected modules to the new core/node.