Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISS end of mission: 2016

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ISS end of mission: 2016

    Washington Post story...

    Space Station Is Near Completion, Maybe the End

    Plan to 'De-Orbit' in 2016 Is Criticized


    By Joel Achenbach
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, July 13, 2009

    A number of times in recent weeks a bright, unblinking light has appeared in the night sky of the nation's capital: a spaceship. Longer than a football field, weighing 654,000 pounds, the spaceship moved swiftly across the heavens and vanished.
    This Story

    Fortunately, it was one of ours.

    The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings. Circling the Earth every 90 minutes, it often passes over North America and is visible from the ground when night has fallen but the station, up high, is still bathed in sunlight.

    After more than a decade of construction, it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts. The last components should be installed by the end of next year.

    And then?

    "In the first quarter of 2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft," says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini.

    That's a polite way of saying that NASA will make the space station fall back into the atmosphere, where it will turn into a fireball and then crash into the Pacific Ocean. It'll be a controlled reentry, to ensure that it doesn't take out a major city. But it'll be destroyed as surely as a Lego palace obliterated by the sweeping arm of a suddenly bored kid.


    This, at least, is NASA's plan, pending a change in policy. There's no long-term funding on the books for international space station operations beyond 2015.

    Suffredini raised some eyebrows when, at a public hearing last month, he declared flatly that the plan is to de-orbit the station in 2016. He addressed his comments to a panel chaired by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine that is charged by the Obama administration with reviewing the entire human spaceflight program. Everything is on the table -- missions, goals, rocket design. And right there in the mix is this big, fancy space laboratory circling the Earth from 220 miles up.

    The cost of the station is both a liability and, paradoxically, a virtue. A figure commonly associated with the ISS is that it will ultimately cost the United States and its international partners about $100 billion. That may add to the political pressure to keep the space laboratory intact and in orbit rather than seeing it plunging back to Earth so soon after completion.

    "If we've spent a hundred billion dollars, I don't think we want to shut it down in 2015," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Augustine's committee.

    Suffredini agrees.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Proof that nasa is unplugged from reality
    If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

    Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

    Comment


    • #3
      Congress does the funding, and with this Congress in particular reality is a foreign concept.
      Dr. Mordrid
      ----------------------------
      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't understand this statement. NASA does not have the right to unilaterally pull the plug. The Russkis and ESA have their say as to when to do so. The major cost has already been paid so WTF are they talking about?
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          Brian, read the fine print. Russia has hardly any actual capital invested in the ISS... sure, they built a fair portion of it, initially, but the US PAID for all of it. It is almost the same for the Cargo module and Kibo Lab: they are useless without the Truss System, so if the US "unilaterally" decides to deorbit the station, I suppose they could leave the Cargo and Kibo Modules up there spinning wildly out of control with no life support or power to re-enter at Sir Newton's Pleasure.

          I say it would be a shame to deorbit the station in 2016... unless we already have a new one up and under construction... preferably by private ventures.

          I suspect one of the reasons they dropped the bombshell of deorbiting the station was to make a dramatic statement (and veiled threat) to the effect of: If you don't give us the money we want to fly it, then we'll spend what we have to crash it.
          Hey, Donny! We got us a German who wants to die for his country... Oblige him. - Lt. Aldo Raine

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
            Don't understand this statement. NASA does not have the right to unilaterally pull the plug. The Russkis and ESA have their say as to when to do so. The major cost has already been paid so WTF are they talking about?
            The US is the majority financial stakeholder in the ISS, so if Congress doesn't re-up operational funding after the current authorization expires in 2015 and the other partners don't take up the slack into the drink it goes in early 2016. And don't forget that the US Congress isn't known for its foresight, especially these days.

            I know it sounds stupid given the years and expense to build it, but there it is.

            Remember: these are the idiots who've so far wasted $5 billion building the Ares I rocket for Orion, a design most every space engineer outside of NASA's upper management knew wouldn't work. Obsessed with a design created on a napkin at Denny's, they were.

            Now a USAF supercomputer simulation shows that an engine failure anywhere from T=0 to T=120 seconds will destroy the Orion and its crew even if the Orion's escape rocket works perfectly.

            MMM:

            Bigelow's first module, Sundancer at 175 cubic meters, is slated to go up in 2012 on a SpaceX Falcon 9. After that they have a deal with ULA (Lockheed Martin/Boeing joint venture) to launch their hubs, maneuvering buses and BA-330 modules, which are 330 cubic meters each and weigh 50,000 lbs, on the Atlas V-401.

            Odds are even if their space taxi will be the SpaceX Dragon or an "Orion Jr." made by Lockheed. That or a longshot: Lockheed teaming with SpaceDev and use their DreamChaser spaceplane. Dragon's advantage is that it can carry 7 and also loiter at the station for over a year for use as a lifeboat.

            IIRC their first station will consist of 1 Sundancer, a hub, a maneuvering bus and 2 BA-330's for a total of 835 cubic meters - larger than the current volume of the ISS.

            Max volume of a 4 BA-330/1 Sundancer station: 1,495 cubic meters not counting the hub.

            Max volume of ISS: 1,200 cubic meters.
            Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 25 July 2009, 01:52.
            Dr. Mordrid
            ----------------------------
            An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

            I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

            Comment

            Working...
            X