ISS to meet a watery grave in 2020

shizz

So I just read this article, http://www.space.com/12452-international-space-station-ocean-grave-russia-nasa.html, and I got to say I was surprised as I never thought of it as something which would eventually end (bit like the shuttle I guess) but be built up on to create something else?

I'm not sure what I expected but has anyone heard of any plans for future space stations or what are the space agencies gearing themselves towards?

namloc1980

shizz wrote: »

So I just read this article, http://www.space.com/12452-international-space-station-ocean-grave-russia-nasa.html, and I got to say I was surprised as I never thought of it as something which would eventually end (bit like the shuttle I guess) but be built up on to create something else?

I'm not sure what I expected but has anyone heard of any plans for future space stations or what are the space agencies gearing themselves towards?

This would be a colossal waste of money just to dump it into the sea after just 20 or so year of operation. Madness. I know the Russians had planned on detaching their parts of the station and using that as the basis for a new Russian station but I don't know/doubt if that will ever happen. The American manned space program is in chaos at the moment so nothing going to happen with them for a long time. The Chinese are actually going to launch their own mini space station in the next few years.

shizz

namloc1980 wrote: »

This would be a colossal waste of money just to dump it into the sea after just 20 or so year of operation. Madness. I know the Russians had planned on detaching their parts of the station and using that as the basis for a new Russian station but I don't know/doubt if that will ever happen. The American manned space program is in chaos at the moment so nothing going to happen with them for a long time. The Chinese are actually going to launch their own mini space station in the next few years.

I agree complete waste of money if they are just going to dump it there, but I suspect or rather hope that they will try and recover as much of it as possible.

Would it really cost that much to keep it up there and use it when it's needed? and keep the dumping it in the sea plan only under dire circumstances?

BULLER

If the cost of getting to LEO is reduced in the next few years when the commercial rocket flights get up and running0; I can definately see ISS flying on into well into the 20's. It would be such a waste if it didn't live out its full life.
Cant wait for these massive expandable space stations though:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/28/newspace-2011-orbital-spaceflight-and-beyond/

2 stroke

Rather than crashing it to earth, wouldn't it be a better idea to load it with fuel & supplies and give it a gentle push out into space, where someday man might catch up with it again.

namloc1980

2 stroke wrote: »

Rather than crashing it to earth, wouldn't it be a better idea to load it with fuel & supplies and give it a gentle push out into space, where someday man might catch up with it again.

You would need a ridiculous amount of energy to send it on an Earth escape trajectory.

AugustusMinimus

All it needs is a boost now and then to ensure it's orbit doesn't decay too badly. Don't want another Skylab.

Just would be crazy to let it plunge into the sea considering it wouldn't cost that much to keep it going.

2 stroke

namloc1980 wrote: »

You would need a ridiculous amount of energy to send it on an Earth escape trajectory.

Perhaps as crazy as bringing it back down after getting it up there in the first place.

Triangla

Could be a bit of not wanting any new spacefaring nations get use out of it when they get into LEO.

I think it should be left there in case any new ships in orbit have problems they can use it as a refuge until rescue/relief arrives.

A life boat of sorts if you will.

Pretty bad form if they just kill it.

clearz

It costs $2Billion per annum to keep the station up and running. It won't be retired in 2020 for the simple fact that

A) It was years late getting finnished
There will be nothing to replace it
C) Its easy to throw money at something that is already there. Look at hubble.
D) With any luck space launches will have come down in price dramatically by 2020

Kxiii

Does it feel like we're going backwards as a race to anyone else no more shuttle, no concord and now talks of scrapping the ISS. I was watching James May on the moon last night and he had met three of the men who walked on the moon. all of whom are now in their sixties and seventies and he remarked how in not too long it'll no longer be in living memory.

Its nearly 40 years since man was last there and unfortunately I don't think we'll see a manned trip to Mars in the next 40. Especially if they do scrap the ISS.

2 stroke

Triangla wrote: »

Could be a bit of not wanting any new spacefaring nations get use out of it when they get into LEO.

I certainly could see that being the main reason. Sure makes a laugh out of calling it the International Space Station.

Beeker

Russia backtracking on plan to sink ISS in 2020:)

http://news.discovery.com/space/space-station-extended-russia-110729.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

maninasia

Similar things happened around 15th/16th/17th century, early naval exploration was very difficult and financially did not make much sense.

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


My guess is that the Chinese will be next to put a person on the moon. There needs to be more reasons to put people into space, whether that be political competition, nationalism or economic. At the same time technology needs to develop to bring costs down.

iPlop

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

All it needs is a boost now and then to ensure it's orbit doesn't decay too badly. Don't want another Skylab.

Just would be crazy to let it plunge into the sea considering it wouldn't cost that much to keep it going.

If we could push it accurately enough to orbit the moon a for future moon colony that would be great.:D

ionadnapokot

Would it really cost that much to keep it up there and use it when it's needed?

Yes it costs a hell of a lot. $2.5 billion a year.

Turtwig

Sink The Banana wrote: »

If we could push it accurately enough to orbit the moon a for future moon colony that would be great.:D

Have no Idea how we could accelerate it that much to push into a lunar orbit.

shizz

Malty_T wrote: »

Have no Idea how we could accelerate it that much to push into a lunar orbit.

Id imagine simply attach boosters of some sort to the ISS. It already has boosters to correct its orbit when it needs to right? Although I can't see this happening.

namloc1980

shizz wrote: »

Id imagine simply attach boosters of some sort to the ISS. It already has boosters to correct its orbit when it needs to right? Although I can't see this happening.

We don't have boosters large enough (and there are none planned to be built) that could send a 400,000 ton structure into trans-lunar injection and into lunar orbit. In fact you would need a gigantic rocket just to get the boosters into orbit to move the ISS. You would be talking about something many many times larger than the Saturn V. In addition the ISS is not structurally designed to deal with the kind of stresses that a lunar journey would subject it to.

Also ISS doesn't have any boosters of it's own. It has small thrusters for tiny orbital manoeuvres. Any big changes in orbit require something like the ATV to be attached to it.

riptide

namloc1980 wrote: »

We don't have boosters large enough (and there are none planned to be built) that could send a 400,000 ton structure into trans-lunar injection and into lunar orbit. In fact you would need a gigantic rocket just to get the boosters into orbit to move the ISS. You would be talking about something many many times larger than the Saturn V. In addition the ISS is not structurally designed to deal with the kind of stresses that a lunar journey would subject it to.

Also ISS doesn't have any boosters of it's own. It has small thrusters for tiny orbital manoeuvres. Any big changes in orbit require something like the ATV to be attached to it.

Just to be clear. It's ~400ton. Not 400,000 ton. I agree broadly with your assertion though: Structurally it is not designed to be boosted anywhere. It would simply disintegrate.

$2.5bn per annum is not a lot of money when you think that the countries involved are economic leaders.

shizz

namloc1980 wrote: »

We don't have boosters large enough (and there are none planned to be built) that could send a 400,000 ton structure into trans-lunar injection and into lunar orbit. In fact you would need a gigantic rocket just to get the boosters into orbit to move the ISS. You would be talking about something many many times larger than the Saturn V. In addition the ISS is not structurally designed to deal with the kind of stresses that a lunar journey would subject it to.

Also ISS doesn't have any boosters of it's own. It has small thrusters for tiny orbital manoeuvres. Any big changes in orbit require something like the ATV to be attached to it.

Well I was under the assumption that they would make it structurally strong for that sort of procedure but yeah I agree it would be a massive feat.

But If the time comes and it could be done. It would probably be obsolete.

2 stroke

Malty_T wrote: »

Have no Idea how we could accelerate it that much to push into a lunar orbit.

Its not exactly rocket science.

Wibbs

maninasia wrote: »

My guess is that the Chinese will be next to put a person on the moon.

I dunno. Yes they've gotten into orbit, but a moon shot is of a serious magnitude greater and would require an equal amount of mad money and political will to do it.

Leidenfrost

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno. Yes they've gotten into orbit, but a moon shot is of a serious magnitude greater and would require an equal amount of mad money and political will to do it.

In Space it is not generally distance that dictates the effort, but the required acceleration/Delta V to climb out of your host planets Gravity well.

Energetically speaking, To place an object in a Geostationary orbit requires 95% of the energy necessary to move the object into a lunar orbit. It takes a hell of a lot of Delta V to get an object out of the Earth's Gravity Well.

Have a look of this video to see it for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw

Just think about it and remember, the Saturn V's small third stage was all that was required to traverse the great majority of the distance to the moon.

Gearheart

It would be a pitty to see the ISS come down, but what exactly have they learned by using it?

k.p.h

riptide wrote: »

Just to be clear. It's ~400ton. Not 400,000 ton.

I was just thinking "jesus the pictures don't do it justice" And then I was like "The Titanic" about 50k ton. Soon after I had a very confused face but I was thinking "wow thats incredible".

Straight back down to earth when I saw your post