5 ms·

The cost of operating would be... astronomical. They would have to subsidize it's operation, and convince Russia and the minor international partners to go alon

by zardo 10y ago

The cost of operating would be... astronomical. They would have to subsidize it's operation, and convince Russia and the minor international partners to go along with it.

bpicolo 10y ago
What's the cost to just keep it in orbit untouched for decades?
- greglindahl 10y ago
  A lot. You have to keep control of it, and have enough fuel to keep on boosting the orbit. Routine maintenance requires parts and 2+ human FTEs.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    >> parts and 2+ human FTEs And more significantly, the infrastructure to get them up there, support the operation, and return them safely.
- zardo 10y ago
  It needs to be reboosted a couple times per year. You could cut a lot of ground crew, but the power and thermal control systems have to remain operational. Telerobotics could replace astronauts for repair and maintenance. Probably 200-300 million per year minimum.(decreasing as the cost to orbit decreases)
  - criddell 10y ago
    > It needs to be reboosted a couple times per year. Is there a elevation that would be a stable orbit? Why not just boost it to that point?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The "just" part is impossible. Higher orbits also make visits harder/more expensive.
    - snuxoll 10y ago
      To put it in a stable orbit maintained by gravity itself you'd need to put it at a Lagrange Point, any of the Earth-Moon points aren't exactly LEO last I checked.
      - bdamm 10y ago
        Permanent orbit is not the goal. Just a few decades would be enough to keep the dream alive and get some good science out of it.
        dalke 10y ago
        There hasn't been much good science out of it yet. I don't think the future will bring much either. If science were our goal we could have done much more science with the same money.
        krallja 10y ago
        > There hasn't been much good science out of it yet. I strongly disagree with this statement. Here are 1052 pages of summaries of the results of scientific experiments on the ISS. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_technical_publication_030116.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_tech...
        dalke 10y ago
        I'll modify my statement, since "good science" has two meanings. ISS has produced competently done science (one definition of "good"), but at a high prices. The same amount of money spent either on the ground, or on unmanned space science missions, would have given more science for the dollar. But a lot of those experiments are "let's see what X does ... in space!", or rather, "in microgravity!." When all you have is a hammer, then you will do a lot of hammer science. But it's not that transferable, except in the most vague of terms - which that document does over and over. To quantify it, that's 1052 pages of summaries across 11 years. And not all of them are science. Call it 95 pages of summaries per year. BTW, it's about 550 individual items, so 50 per year. ISS cost, what, $100-$150 billion over 20 years, or 5-7 billion/year? The NIH budget is $32 billion/year, which goes to 50,000 grants. That's about 6x larger. In terms of science per dollar, I'm pretty sure an equivalent summary of the NIH-funded research would exceed 6x95 = ~600 pages. The other definition of "good" is "better than average". For example, if microgravity gave a significantly better to make protein crystals for x-ray analysis, then that would be great science. But in practice, no, it isn't. There are only a handful of crystallization experiments in those 11 years of experiments, and one of the things we've found out is that ultra-centrifuges are more useful than microgravity. A lot cheaper too. The quality of the science is about average for the fields I'm used to, and the cost is much higher. That's why I say "there hasn't been much good science" out of the ISS.
- kylehotchkiss 10y ago
  You have to maintain it to the extent where the eventual de-orbital process lands it in a an ocean and not above population center to ensure no bits that didn't burn up hit anything.

by zardo 10y ago

The cost of operating would be... astronomical. They would have to subsidize it's operation, and convince Russia and the minor international partners to go along with it.

bpicolo 10y ago

What's the cost to just keep it in orbit untouched for decades?

greglindahl 10y ago
A lot. You have to keep control of it, and have enough fuel to keep on boosting the orbit. Routine maintenance requires parts and 2+ human FTEs.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  >> parts and 2+ human FTEs And more significantly, the infrastructure to get them up there, support the operation, and return them safely.
zardo 10y ago
It needs to be reboosted a couple times per year. You could cut a lot of ground crew, but the power and thermal control systems have to remain operational. Telerobotics could replace astronauts for repair and maintenance. Probably 200-300 million per year minimum.(decreasing as the cost to orbit decreases)
- criddell 10y ago
  > It needs to be reboosted a couple times per year. Is there a elevation that would be a stable orbit? Why not just boost it to that point?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The "just" part is impossible. Higher orbits also make visits harder/more expensive.
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    To put it in a stable orbit maintained by gravity itself you'd need to put it at a Lagrange Point, any of the Earth-Moon points aren't exactly LEO last I checked.
    - bdamm 10y ago
      Permanent orbit is not the goal. Just a few decades would be enough to keep the dream alive and get some good science out of it.
      - dalke 10y ago
        There hasn't been much good science out of it yet. I don't think the future will bring much either. If science were our goal we could have done much more science with the same money.
        krallja 10y ago
        > There hasn't been much good science out of it yet. I strongly disagree with this statement. Here are 1052 pages of summaries of the results of scientific experiments on the ISS. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_technical_publication_030116.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_tech...
        dalke 10y ago
        I'll modify my statement, since "good science" has two meanings. ISS has produced competently done science (one definition of "good"), but at a high prices. The same amount of money spent either on the ground, or on unmanned space science missions, would have given more science for the dollar. But a lot of those experiments are "let's see what X does ... in space!", or rather, "in microgravity!." When all you have is a hammer, then you will do a lot of hammer science. But it's not that transferable, except in the most vague of terms - which that document does over and over. To quantify it, that's 1052 pages of summaries across 11 years. And not all of them are science. Call it 95 pages of summaries per year. BTW, it's about 550 individual items, so 50 per year. ISS cost, what, $100-$150 billion over 20 years, or 5-7 billion/year? The NIH budget is $32 billion/year, which goes to 50,000 grants. That's about 6x larger. In terms of science per dollar, I'm pretty sure an equivalent summary of the NIH-funded research would exceed 6x95 = ~600 pages. The other definition of "good" is "better than average". For example, if microgravity gave a significantly better to make protein crystals for x-ray analysis, then that would be great science. But in practice, no, it isn't. There are only a handful of crystallization experiments in those 11 years of experiments, and one of the things we've found out is that ultra-centrifuges are more useful than microgravity. A lot cheaper too. The quality of the science is about average for the fields I'm used to, and the cost is much higher. That's why I say "there hasn't been much good science" out of the ISS.
kylehotchkiss 10y ago
You have to maintain it to the extent where the eventual de-orbital process lands it in a an ocean and not above population center to ensure no bits that didn't burn up hit anything.