7 ms·

New plan to defund space station opens up some surprising possibilities

61 points by gvb 9y ago

lettergram 9y ago
Link to actual budget: https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
imtringued 9y ago
The ISS has reached the end of it's usefulness. The money is better spent on a manned lunar orbital outpost. [1] [1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-lunar-outpost-will-extend-human-presence-in-deep-space https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-lunar-outpost-will-exten...
- nickik 9y ago
  The Luna outpost is an insane waste of money, especially considering they want to build it with SLS and Orion. There is no practical reason for a moon space station. It makes neither scientific nor engineering sense. If they want to do lunar exploration doing direct surface to surface is far more efficient. SpaceX architecture is way, way cheaper then DSG and friends and far better to support any form of lunar exploration.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    A lunar outpost is a good idea as a platform for staging deep space missions. Launching from the Moon is much cheaper than launching from Earth (in terms of delta-V) if you can build out in-situ fuel production, plus more novel launch mechanisms like space elevators and mass drivers are more feasible on the Moon than on Earth. The far side of the Moon is also an interesting platform for astronomy. We'd also learn a lot about a Mars mission by being on the moon, such as proving out safe long-term habitats at a distance where rescue missions are feasible, studying the effects of low (rather than zero) gravity in the long term, etc.
    - Retric 9y ago
      No it's currently vastly more expensive in terms of delta-V because you need to get the fuel to the moon at the cost of delta-V. Saying we could mine the moon at some point in the future is great, but why not just move an comet into earth orbit and mine that. It's about as feasible in theory, but does not require you to get out of the moon's gravity well. PS: If you really want rail guns, you can also get free delta-v from solar sails and use them maintain a launch platform's orbit.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
        >why not just move an comet into earth orbit This is probably substantially more difficult than establishing a moon colony and mining there. Comets have lots of orbital speed you have to overcome, and are generally pretty big. Edit: >PS: If you really want rail guns, you can also get free delta-v from solar sails and use them maintain a launch platform's orbit. Solar sails cannot maintain the orbit of an orbital rail gun launch platform -_- All of your ideas are more of a moonshot than an actual moonshot.
        Retric 9y ago
        Solar sails provide free delta v if you are already in orbit and willing to wait. It's not useful for moving people around the solar system, but a rock that takes 100 years to get somewhere is not a big deal. On that timescale they can move literal mountains.
        Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
        Free delta-V, yes, but not much - certainly not enough to maintain the orbit of a mass driver.
        Retric 9y ago
        As you just want station keeping you can ignore the mass of the sail and mass driver, all of the delta-v from the sail get's transfers to what the mass driver launches. Thus you can actually use a fairly thick sail without issue. The problem is because the station is staying still you are effectively limited to the square root of a sails acceleration. Still ~7 newtons per km^2 adds up and you avoid the delta v deficit from being on the moon in the first place.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    They may want to build it with SLS and Orion, but I can't imagine that's what'll actually happen.
  - emilfihlman 9y ago
    >There is no practical reason for a moon space station. It makes neither scientific nor engineering sense. Yeah so no. You have no idea what you are talking about.
  - aphextron 9y ago
    >There is no practical reason for a moon space station. It makes neither scientific nor engineering sense. There is no practical reason for space travel in the first place. We should do it because it's a cool thing to do and people will enjoy doing it. Everything else is an ancillary benefit.
    - gnode 9y ago
      Practicality generally refers to usefulness in fulfilling a larger goal. A moon space station should either be cool in itself, or it should be a practical stepping stone on the way to something cooler. To many people it just seems like a cop out mission, that will use up the budget, short of efficiently working toward something really cool, like human space exploration beyond Earth.
      - aphextron 9y ago
        I could easily see the billionaire class spending insane amounts of money vacationing out there if that was really a thing. The commercial opportunities that would bring are enormous. SpaceX already has two people committed and paid to orbit around the moon next year. In my mind, anything that gets people hyped for space exploration and investing real money and effort immediately is a good thing. Having lofty goals for mars exploration and colonization is important. But we need to practice and learn how to do it in the first place right now and close to home with what we know works, then build up. If it's commercially viable, there's no reason not to.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > The ISS has reached the end of it's usefulness. [citation needed]
  - kodis 9y ago
    Lighten up guy, it's an opinion, not a wikipedia entry.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      Well if you're going to make some claim one of the most important advancements in science, technology, and space travel is useless, at least provide some evidence to support your claim. Because everything else suggests that you're wrong.
- gushie 9y ago
  Strap some big rockets onto the ISS and somehow gently land it on the moon?
  - idlewords 9y ago
    The delta-v needed to go from low earth orbit to the Moon's surface is about half of what it took to launch all the components into orbit to begin with. That's a lot of rockets to strap on, and then you'll need additional rockets to move those rockets... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth–Moon_space—high_thrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth–Moon_spac...]
    - mrfusion 9y ago
      You can use ion propulsion and power it with the existing solar panels. It might take a while but you can go anywhere you want.
      - gnode 9y ago
        You can't. As soon as you're below orbital velocity at the moon (or any other solid body), you're going to have to slow down quickly, or you'll just collide with it at near orbital velocity. No atmosphere on the moon either, so it'd have to be done with rockets.
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  Meh... not really.
ggm 9y ago
The main problem with the ISS is that the wrong budget is paying for it. It should be in the arts and education sector, instead of NASA.
- rtkwe 9y ago
  That's incredibly incorrect the ISS is first and foremost a US National Lab where companies, universities and NASA itself can perform experiments on zero/micro G.
  - ggm 9y ago
    It was a very troll-like comment. To be less troll-y, there has been a long standing criticism in the science community about the cost:benefit side of this. I love the ISS. seeing it pass has been a highspot for me in an otherwise boring week, more than once. I went to every IMAX show I could about it. Thats some amazing stuff up there. I discount the 'research aimed to further space exploration by mankind' side, as being self-serving. (but I totally agree NASA should pay for that, so I guess I killed my own argument right there) it is true research and its good science, and we need to know it, but I've always felt its a bit of a stretch to justify the overall budget on this line. So I wind up asking myself what we got from micro and zero gravity we couldn't have got other ways. The russians got high quality crystals for their soviet chip farming back in the day on their one. I think by the time ISS came along, that was less of an issue for them. A totally unscientific google search shows theres a small amount of rumbling discontent under the covers. Even within NASA. It might reflect the long standing 'sats are cheaper than humans' view about what to put in space, and why.
    - John_KZ 9y ago
      The ISS is in fact not very productive in terms of research, but it's running costs are relatively small and if it gets shut down, the next space station will cost incredible amounts of money, and it's possible that much of the current technical expertise on the aerospace systems will be lost by then. I think ISS's value is not on scientific experiments but as a training and testing ground for the space industry. We could scale it down a bit, but imo decommissioning the only manned human outpost in space is a mistake, especially since there's zero realistic plans to replace it.
maxxxxx 9y ago
In the end the US has no clear space strategy and no goals. Every incoming president declares a new program for PR purposes, doesn't fund it and forgets about it then. I think best would be to fund NASA with a fixed amount and let the scientists battle it out what to do. It makes me sad that Congress forces NASA into silly projects like the SLS.
- cydonian_monk 9y ago
  And that pattern is exactly the reason I’m in favor of restructuring NASA. Get them out of the “big project to nowhere” business and make them a “science and space traffic control” organization. Maybe even split those two operations off to the FAA and the NSF (or other relevant agencies). I like NASA, I love (most of) what they’ve done, but they’re increasingly just an expensive political tool.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    The contractors who build our rockets our the same ones who build [our] war machine. These projects have been, all the way back to Kennedy, about keeping the military industrial complex in business. Another route to go is not incompatible with SpaceX’s mission (I’m not suggesting Musk will save us, just that he’s not as wrong as the feds). Use space flight to prop up the industrial complex instead. We have converted that to military in times of war before. We can do it again if we need to. Stop indulging in war fantasies and get to the belts. Learn if it’s possible to refine materials in low g. Start building things. Destinations.
    - pasabagi 9y ago
      I think it was a little bit more directed than that - a way to conduct advanced ballistic missile research, and to show off how good your ballistic missiles were, without looking too warlike. Before the invention of the Minuteman, the space program was using the same rockets as the ICBMs, I think.
nickhalfasleep 9y ago
In many ways the ISS is the victim of it's own stunning success. Never before have kept habitation outside the earth for so long with so many people, with international teamwork and no fatalities during construction or maintenance. People have gotten used to this. All the knowledge and experience of the many countries and companies involved will go on to help every other space project.
- Steltek 9y ago
  The cooperation factor shouldn't be understated. It's an amazing piece of engineering developed between many countries. Especially countries with a turbulent relationship right now (US and Russia). It's like a UN that actually works.
grondilu 9y ago
> humanity’s only permanent outpost in space is an institution that needs to be protected. Sounds almost like the definition of the White Elephant[1]. Costly, but prestigious. Keeping it is unreasonable, getting rid of it is embarrassing. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
sathackr 9y ago
Why de-orbit? Why not use the same rockets to move it up into an orbit that doesn't degrade as quickly and doesn't need to be maintained at regular intervals. A ton of money was spent launching and building it. Why not leave it for potential future use?
- theandrewbailey 9y ago
  If no one's interested in it, it becomes space junk. It's a problem.[0] Don't make more. You need to responsibly dispose of space junk, and the easiest way is to incinerate it via atmospheric reentry. If it doesn't have a controlled de-orbit, it will have an uncontrolled de-orbit, potentially destroying something (or killing someone) when it reaches ground. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
  - nickik 9y ago
    You could boost it in a specific orbit leave it. That what happens with many satallites and is not consider space junk. Putting stuff on specific orbits is exactly how we fight space junk.
- lgats 9y ago
  Keeping it lower in earth's orbit exposes it to less solar radiation Not to say I wouldn't be on board with moving it up and keeping it around as a space museum
StellarTabi 9y ago
I'd like to see more efforts targeting space mining and manufacturing.

61 points by gvb 9y ago

Link to actual budget: https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

The ISS has reached the end of it's usefulness. The money is better spent on a manned lunar orbital outpost. [1] [1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-lunar-outpost-will-extend-human-presence-in-deep-space https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-lunar-outpost-will-exten...

nickik 9y ago
The Luna outpost is an insane waste of money, especially considering they want to build it with SLS and Orion. There is no practical reason for a moon space station. It makes neither scientific nor engineering sense. If they want to do lunar exploration doing direct surface to surface is far more efficient. SpaceX architecture is way, way cheaper then DSG and friends and far better to support any form of lunar exploration.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  A lunar outpost is a good idea as a platform for staging deep space missions. Launching from the Moon is much cheaper than launching from Earth (in terms of delta-V) if you can build out in-situ fuel production, plus more novel launch mechanisms like space elevators and mass drivers are more feasible on the Moon than on Earth. The far side of the Moon is also an interesting platform for astronomy. We'd also learn a lot about a Mars mission by being on the moon, such as proving out safe long-term habitats at a distance where rescue missions are feasible, studying the effects of low (rather than zero) gravity in the long term, etc.
  - Retric 9y ago
    No it's currently vastly more expensive in terms of delta-V because you need to get the fuel to the moon at the cost of delta-V. Saying we could mine the moon at some point in the future is great, but why not just move an comet into earth orbit and mine that. It's about as feasible in theory, but does not require you to get out of the moon's gravity well. PS: If you really want rail guns, you can also get free delta-v from solar sails and use them maintain a launch platform's orbit.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      >why not just move an comet into earth orbit This is probably substantially more difficult than establishing a moon colony and mining there. Comets have lots of orbital speed you have to overcome, and are generally pretty big. Edit: >PS: If you really want rail guns, you can also get free delta-v from solar sails and use them maintain a launch platform's orbit. Solar sails cannot maintain the orbit of an orbital rail gun launch platform -_- All of your ideas are more of a moonshot than an actual moonshot.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Solar sails provide free delta v if you are already in orbit and willing to wait. It's not useful for moving people around the solar system, but a rock that takes 100 years to get somewhere is not a big deal. On that timescale they can move literal mountains.
        Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
        Free delta-V, yes, but not much - certainly not enough to maintain the orbit of a mass driver.
        Retric 9y ago
        As you just want station keeping you can ignore the mass of the sail and mass driver, all of the delta-v from the sail get's transfers to what the mass driver launches. Thus you can actually use a fairly thick sail without issue. The problem is because the station is staying still you are effectively limited to the square root of a sails acceleration. Still ~7 newtons per km^2 adds up and you avoid the delta v deficit from being on the moon in the first place.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  They may want to build it with SLS and Orion, but I can't imagine that's what'll actually happen.
- emilfihlman 9y ago
  >There is no practical reason for a moon space station. It makes neither scientific nor engineering sense. Yeah so no. You have no idea what you are talking about.
- aphextron 9y ago
  >There is no practical reason for a moon space station. It makes neither scientific nor engineering sense. There is no practical reason for space travel in the first place. We should do it because it's a cool thing to do and people will enjoy doing it. Everything else is an ancillary benefit.
  - gnode 9y ago
    Practicality generally refers to usefulness in fulfilling a larger goal. A moon space station should either be cool in itself, or it should be a practical stepping stone on the way to something cooler. To many people it just seems like a cop out mission, that will use up the budget, short of efficiently working toward something really cool, like human space exploration beyond Earth.
    - aphextron 9y ago
      I could easily see the billionaire class spending insane amounts of money vacationing out there if that was really a thing. The commercial opportunities that would bring are enormous. SpaceX already has two people committed and paid to orbit around the moon next year. In my mind, anything that gets people hyped for space exploration and investing real money and effort immediately is a good thing. Having lofty goals for mars exploration and colonization is important. But we need to practice and learn how to do it in the first place right now and close to home with what we know works, then build up. If it's commercially viable, there's no reason not to.
craftyguy 9y ago
> The ISS has reached the end of it's usefulness. [citation needed]
- kodis 9y ago
  Lighten up guy, it's an opinion, not a wikipedia entry.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    Well if you're going to make some claim one of the most important advancements in science, technology, and space travel is useless, at least provide some evidence to support your claim. Because everything else suggests that you're wrong.
gushie 9y ago
Strap some big rockets onto the ISS and somehow gently land it on the moon?
- idlewords 9y ago
  The delta-v needed to go from low earth orbit to the Moon's surface is about half of what it took to launch all the components into orbit to begin with. That's a lot of rockets to strap on, and then you'll need additional rockets to move those rockets... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth–Moon_space—high_thrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth–Moon_spac...]
  - mrfusion 9y ago
    You can use ion propulsion and power it with the existing solar panels. It might take a while but you can go anywhere you want.
    - gnode 9y ago
      You can't. As soon as you're below orbital velocity at the moon (or any other solid body), you're going to have to slow down quickly, or you'll just collide with it at near orbital velocity. No atmosphere on the moon either, so it'd have to be done with rockets.
foobarbazetc 9y ago
Meh... not really.

ggm 9y ago

The main problem with the ISS is that the wrong budget is paying for it. It should be in the arts and education sector, instead of NASA.

rtkwe 9y ago
That's incredibly incorrect the ISS is first and foremost a US National Lab where companies, universities and NASA itself can perform experiments on zero/micro G.
- ggm 9y ago
  It was a very troll-like comment. To be less troll-y, there has been a long standing criticism in the science community about the cost:benefit side of this. I love the ISS. seeing it pass has been a highspot for me in an otherwise boring week, more than once. I went to every IMAX show I could about it. Thats some amazing stuff up there. I discount the 'research aimed to further space exploration by mankind' side, as being self-serving. (but I totally agree NASA should pay for that, so I guess I killed my own argument right there) it is true research and its good science, and we need to know it, but I've always felt its a bit of a stretch to justify the overall budget on this line. So I wind up asking myself what we got from micro and zero gravity we couldn't have got other ways. The russians got high quality crystals for their soviet chip farming back in the day on their one. I think by the time ISS came along, that was less of an issue for them. A totally unscientific google search shows theres a small amount of rumbling discontent under the covers. Even within NASA. It might reflect the long standing 'sats are cheaper than humans' view about what to put in space, and why.
  - John_KZ 9y ago
    The ISS is in fact not very productive in terms of research, but it's running costs are relatively small and if it gets shut down, the next space station will cost incredible amounts of money, and it's possible that much of the current technical expertise on the aerospace systems will be lost by then. I think ISS's value is not on scientific experiments but as a training and testing ground for the space industry. We could scale it down a bit, but imo decommissioning the only manned human outpost in space is a mistake, especially since there's zero realistic plans to replace it.

maxxxxx 9y ago

In the end the US has no clear space strategy and no goals. Every incoming president declares a new program for PR purposes, doesn't fund it and forgets about it then. I think best would be to fund NASA with a fixed amount and let the scientists battle it out what to do. It makes me sad that Congress forces NASA into silly projects like the SLS.

cydonian_monk 9y ago
And that pattern is exactly the reason I’m in favor of restructuring NASA. Get them out of the “big project to nowhere” business and make them a “science and space traffic control” organization. Maybe even split those two operations off to the FAA and the NSF (or other relevant agencies). I like NASA, I love (most of) what they’ve done, but they’re increasingly just an expensive political tool.
- hinkley 9y ago
  The contractors who build our rockets our the same ones who build [our] war machine. These projects have been, all the way back to Kennedy, about keeping the military industrial complex in business. Another route to go is not incompatible with SpaceX’s mission (I’m not suggesting Musk will save us, just that he’s not as wrong as the feds). Use space flight to prop up the industrial complex instead. We have converted that to military in times of war before. We can do it again if we need to. Stop indulging in war fantasies and get to the belts. Learn if it’s possible to refine materials in low g. Start building things. Destinations.
  - pasabagi 9y ago
    I think it was a little bit more directed than that - a way to conduct advanced ballistic missile research, and to show off how good your ballistic missiles were, without looking too warlike. Before the invention of the Minuteman, the space program was using the same rockets as the ICBMs, I think.

nickhalfasleep 9y ago

In many ways the ISS is the victim of it's own stunning success. Never before have kept habitation outside the earth for so long with so many people, with international teamwork and no fatalities during construction or maintenance. People have gotten used to this. All the knowledge and experience of the many countries and companies involved will go on to help every other space project.

Steltek 9y ago
The cooperation factor shouldn't be understated. It's an amazing piece of engineering developed between many countries. Especially countries with a turbulent relationship right now (US and Russia). It's like a UN that actually works.

grondilu 9y ago

> humanity’s only permanent outpost in space is an institution that needs to be protected. Sounds almost like the definition of the White Elephant[1]. Costly, but prestigious. Keeping it is unreasonable, getting rid of it is embarrassing. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

sathackr 9y ago

Why de-orbit? Why not use the same rockets to move it up into an orbit that doesn't degrade as quickly and doesn't need to be maintained at regular intervals. A ton of money was spent launching and building it. Why not leave it for potential future use?

theandrewbailey 9y ago
If no one's interested in it, it becomes space junk. It's a problem.[0] Don't make more. You need to responsibly dispose of space junk, and the easiest way is to incinerate it via atmospheric reentry. If it doesn't have a controlled de-orbit, it will have an uncontrolled de-orbit, potentially destroying something (or killing someone) when it reaches ground. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
- nickik 9y ago
  You could boost it in a specific orbit leave it. That what happens with many satallites and is not consider space junk. Putting stuff on specific orbits is exactly how we fight space junk.
lgats 9y ago
Keeping it lower in earth's orbit exposes it to less solar radiation Not to say I wouldn't be on board with moving it up and keeping it around as a space museum

StellarTabi 9y ago

I'd like to see more efforts targeting space mining and manufacturing.