3 ms·

The ISS has a limited life due to thermal cycling and such. (One hot/cold cycle every 90 minutes). Think airliner cycles. The first part was launched in 1998.

The ISS has a limited life due to thermal cycling and such. (One hot/cold cycle every 90 minutes). Think airliner cycles. The first part was launched in 1998. ISS was actually supposed to be deorbited in the 2015 timeframe under Bush II (to make funds available for the Constellation program), later extended to 2020 and then 2025. I think most expect ISS to stay in orbit until 2028 or maybe a little later, so some extension is likely to happen regardless of what Trump's policy is (same as how Obama extended ISS). 30 years is a really long time for safety-critical space hardware, and ISS absorbs an astronomical amount of funding. It's not hyperbole to say that the Trump Moon shot would have plenty of funding if ISS wasn't around. We're talking about an additional $4-5 billion per year.

bluGill 7y ago
How does Russia feel about this? They have modules too, and face similar issues.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  There were some nebulous plans to split off the Russian modules as a core for a new station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E... I'm extremely dubious of their ability to fund such an endeavour.
chungleong 7y ago
I remember being angry when Congress cancelled fundings for Superconducting Super Collider but kept those for Space Station Freedom. From a scientific discovery standpoint, the decision was utterly unjustifiable. I'm willing to accept the contention that space exploration is more than science--it's the fulfillment of Man's aspiration. But if the existence of the space station becomes an impediment to space exploration itself then what exactly is the point?
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. Building ever-bigger colliders has pretty hardcore diminishing returns. ISS (what Space Station Freedom became) is also a platform with a whole bunch of scientific and now commercial applications, many of which were not even foreseen at the time. Additionally, CERN ended up building CERN, which basically accomplished the goals of SSC. I doubt anyone else would have taken up the mantle of ISS other than a few small modules. But I agree it's potentially problematic that ISS has become a budget drain on NASA. That's why it's good to look for alternative customers/uses of ISS other than being entirely paid for by NASA.

bluGill 7y ago

How does Russia feel about this? They have modules too, and face similar issues.

ceejayoz 7y ago
There were some nebulous plans to split off the Russian modules as a core for a new station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E... I'm extremely dubious of their ability to fund such an endeavour.

chungleong 7y ago

I remember being angry when Congress cancelled fundings for Superconducting Super Collider but kept those for Space Station Freedom. From a scientific discovery standpoint, the decision was utterly unjustifiable. I'm willing to accept the contention that space exploration is more than science--it's the fulfillment of Man's aspiration. But if the existence of the space station becomes an impediment to space exploration itself then what exactly is the point?

Robotbeat 7y ago
I'm not sure I agree. Building ever-bigger colliders has pretty hardcore diminishing returns. ISS (what Space Station Freedom became) is also a platform with a whole bunch of scientific and now commercial applications, many of which were not even foreseen at the time. Additionally, CERN ended up building CERN, which basically accomplished the goals of SSC. I doubt anyone else would have taken up the mantle of ISS other than a few small modules. But I agree it's potentially problematic that ISS has become a budget drain on NASA. That's why it's good to look for alternative customers/uses of ISS other than being entirely paid for by NASA.