7 ms·

Not a big space person, but this makes me wonder: why have we not planned for a new ISS? We must have better tech nowadays from all the working countries/groups

Not a big space person, but this makes me wonder: why have we not planned for a new ISS? We must have better tech nowadays from all the working countries/groups currently involved, plus SpaceX and other space companies' backing that would not have existed as it does now back when this ISS was first designed/created.

spiritplumber 6y ago
The ISS mostly happened because it was a way to keep ex-Soviet aerospace scientists and engineers doing aerospace things rather than, say, go build ICBMs for third world countries. Same as Arecibo happened because the USAF wanted a big radar and the Hubble happened because (I forgot which spy agency it was) had a spare satellite. Sad when you think about it...
- HPsquared 6y ago
  Satellites in general happened as a result of an arms race.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    The space race at all was 90% a pissing match between the USSR and the USA.
- proggy 6y ago
  Hubble’s optics were designed around contemporary manufacturing infrastructure for spy satellites, presumably the KH-11 design developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen
- adamjb 6y ago
  Don't forget the other half of it: the ISS was basically the only justification for the Shuttle's continued existence
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >The ISS mostly happened because it was a way to keep ex-Soviet aerospace scientists and engineers doing aerospace things rather than, say, go build ICBMs for third world countries. Nope. It's funny you seriously consider it being true. Building space stations and ICBMs are two VERY different fields for one thing. And number of launches to ISS is significantly smaller than number of satellite launches. One of the main reasons for the US was a chance to buy space station building technology and transfer relevant expertise for a relatively cheap price tag. Russian/USSR scientists and engineers were far ahead in this field thanks to the Mir station. Creating a demand for the Space Shuttle was a good bonus as well.
input_sh 6y ago
We do have plans for its replacement. Axiom is going to launch three modules, starting from 2024. When it's time to retire ISS (2028 probably), Axiom's modules will detach, effectively becoming ISS 2.0. I'm fine with ISS being open for commercial operations, but can't help but feel unease by the entire ISS being a commercial endeavour. But then again, about a fifth of NASA's budget goes to keeping the lights on in ISS.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  I'll believe it when there's more than renders or they've booked a rocket. The current decomm date floating around for the ISS is 2025 so they're not long left.
renewiltord 6y ago
When Starship comes online, building a thing like this will be hecka fast.
- qayxc 6y ago
  Nope - there'll be not much difference. It's not just the getting things into space that's the hard and costly part. Modules take years to design, build, and test. That's why the current trend moves towards ever smaller and thus cheaper satellites and big launchers like Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Falcon Heavy barely see any action at all. Starship would enable single-launch space stations, yes. But there are no single-launch space station designs yet and building one will either take time (ISS/MIR) or end up being much more expensive per person day due to weak design (e.g. Skylab).
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    >> It's not just the getting things into space that's the hard and costly part. Modules take years to design, build, and test. Using the traditional approach, yes. But SpaceX is proving that there are other approaches that yield fruit far faster and also for drastically less money.
    - danielheath 6y ago
      Yes, but there's a good reason why they have so-far reserved this approach for unmanned vehicles.
    - qayxc 6y ago
      Well, how many space stations have SpaceX designed so far? And what, pray tell, is the "traditional approach" in designing space stations compared to magical "approaches that yield results faster"? Are you aware that Skylab was designed, built, and launched in under 4 years and consisted of a converted Saturn-IVB rocket stage? The total program cost was $275M per year over 8 years (including design, 4 stations, 4 Skylab- and 3 Apollo launches, as well as operations), which translates to $1.6Bn/yr in 2021 dollars. Today, Bigelow Aerospace would have - maybe (they're currently defunct due to the pandemic - the B330 more or less ready to fly, but that is launched on an Atlas V. It took two demonstration models, launched in 2005 and 2007 to get them ready for prime time. In 2013 they developed the BEAM module under a 16 month NASA contract, which was launched and attached to the ISS in 2016. So BA built and deployed two prototypes in 2 years and a crewed fully functional module in 16 months with just $17.8M. Yet you assume that SpaceX, who never built a space station before, can somehow do it even faster and cheaper? Why? On what factual basis and on which historical examples do you base this assumption on?
snoshy 6y ago
Largely because it's a fantastically expensive undertaking, and hasn't quite borne out the fruits that were speculated about over the years. USA provides a huge bulk of the funding, expertise, and personnel required to keep the program running. That's not to say that Russia, Canada, Japan, etc. don't do their part, but it's really not as much of a truly global joint effort as you might be led to believe. Then there's a genuine question of what this enormous expenditure truly buys us. NASA's budget has been strangled for decades now, and robotic probes and missions to other planets have been perennially delayed due to cost, while their scientific ROI would truly be much greater than for ISS experiments in many cases. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the ISS and manned spaceflight in general, but this kind of money does require serious explanation to Congress to justify the costs. Oh, and there's the entire money pit that is Artemis/SLS that stays on NASA books. Also, why now? The private space industry is at what seems to be the beginning of an inflection point with heavy launch capabilities (SpaceX Starship) looking likely to drive down costs by over an order of magnitude. A single Starship might provide 800 cubic meters of volume, and the whole ISS is 1,000 cubic meters. Why not wait for that to come online and then launch many many ISS' worth of volume to several labs? Lastly, the privatization of launch vehicles in particular has a lot of people questioning if private industry might be better able to step up to this challenge of manned orbiting labs. It has a potential to expand the range of solutions, massively decrease costs, and provide efficiencies that NASA might not be able to provide. When you don't have to manufacture space parts scattered all across the globe, it's easy to see why this could be cheaper and more efficient.
- calibas 6y ago
  >Then there's a genuine question of what this enormous expenditure truly buys us. It helps to answer the question of whether or not humans can even survive long term away from Earth. Sure, if you judge it purely by the price tag, it's not doing very well. If you judge it by the scientific, societal and philosophical implications, we're not spending nearly enough.
  - YetAnotherNick 6y ago
    > It helps to answer the question of whether or not humans can even survive long term away from Earth How will it answer that question that we already don't know of? I don't think that was the aim of ISS anyways and will definitely won't be the aim of second ISS. Humans can survive in space for year without significant physical damage but with lot of training.
stefan_ 6y ago
Because the scientific value is dubious. Most of the experiments tend to be "doing X, but in space" or looking for solutions to medical problems that only occur because you are on the ISS on the first place.
saalweachter 6y ago
The ISS is modular. There's no need for a "new" ISS, per se. You just attach new modules and, if need be, detach and deorbit old modules. It's less exciting, kind of like maintaining an old code base.
fuoqi 6y ago
There are plans on the Russian side. If it will be decided to discontinue ISS after 2026, then the new Russian modules (Nauka, Prichal, and SPM-1) will be undocked to form core of a new station. Depending on negotiations it could either become ISS-2, or sovereign OPSEK [0]. But unfortunately I don't have high hopes for those plans to be implemented in reality for a number of reasons. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E...
hindsightbias 6y ago
NASA had no vehicle for launching a replacement. It didn’t even have a domestic vehicle for launching astronauts for 9 years. SLS ate up any funds that were left. Private industry doesn’t need a station.
philistine 6y ago
It's literally the most expensive single structure built in the history of our species. Perhaps this little fact can put in perspective why we have yet to plan for another one.

spiritplumber 6y ago

The ISS mostly happened because it was a way to keep ex-Soviet aerospace scientists and engineers doing aerospace things rather than, say, go build ICBMs for third world countries. Same as Arecibo happened because the USAF wanted a big radar and the Hubble happened because (I forgot which spy agency it was) had a spare satellite. Sad when you think about it...

HPsquared 6y ago
Satellites in general happened as a result of an arms race.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  The space race at all was 90% a pissing match between the USSR and the USA.
proggy 6y ago
Hubble’s optics were designed around contemporary manufacturing infrastructure for spy satellites, presumably the KH-11 design developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen
adamjb 6y ago
Don't forget the other half of it: the ISS was basically the only justification for the Shuttle's continued existence
fuoqi 6y ago
>The ISS mostly happened because it was a way to keep ex-Soviet aerospace scientists and engineers doing aerospace things rather than, say, go build ICBMs for third world countries. Nope. It's funny you seriously consider it being true. Building space stations and ICBMs are two VERY different fields for one thing. And number of launches to ISS is significantly smaller than number of satellite launches. One of the main reasons for the US was a chance to buy space station building technology and transfer relevant expertise for a relatively cheap price tag. Russian/USSR scientists and engineers were far ahead in this field thanks to the Mir station. Creating a demand for the Space Shuttle was a good bonus as well.

input_sh 6y ago

We do have plans for its replacement. Axiom is going to launch three modules, starting from 2024. When it's time to retire ISS (2028 probably), Axiom's modules will detach, effectively becoming ISS 2.0. I'm fine with ISS being open for commercial operations, but can't help but feel unease by the entire ISS being a commercial endeavour. But then again, about a fifth of NASA's budget goes to keeping the lights on in ISS.

rtkwe 6y ago
I'll believe it when there's more than renders or they've booked a rocket. The current decomm date floating around for the ISS is 2025 so they're not long left.

renewiltord 6y ago

When Starship comes online, building a thing like this will be hecka fast.

qayxc 6y ago
Nope - there'll be not much difference. It's not just the getting things into space that's the hard and costly part. Modules take years to design, build, and test. That's why the current trend moves towards ever smaller and thus cheaper satellites and big launchers like Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Falcon Heavy barely see any action at all. Starship would enable single-launch space stations, yes. But there are no single-launch space station designs yet and building one will either take time (ISS/MIR) or end up being much more expensive per person day due to weak design (e.g. Skylab).
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >> It's not just the getting things into space that's the hard and costly part. Modules take years to design, build, and test. Using the traditional approach, yes. But SpaceX is proving that there are other approaches that yield fruit far faster and also for drastically less money.
  - danielheath 6y ago
    Yes, but there's a good reason why they have so-far reserved this approach for unmanned vehicles.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    Well, how many space stations have SpaceX designed so far? And what, pray tell, is the "traditional approach" in designing space stations compared to magical "approaches that yield results faster"? Are you aware that Skylab was designed, built, and launched in under 4 years and consisted of a converted Saturn-IVB rocket stage? The total program cost was $275M per year over 8 years (including design, 4 stations, 4 Skylab- and 3 Apollo launches, as well as operations), which translates to $1.6Bn/yr in 2021 dollars. Today, Bigelow Aerospace would have - maybe (they're currently defunct due to the pandemic - the B330 more or less ready to fly, but that is launched on an Atlas V. It took two demonstration models, launched in 2005 and 2007 to get them ready for prime time. In 2013 they developed the BEAM module under a 16 month NASA contract, which was launched and attached to the ISS in 2016. So BA built and deployed two prototypes in 2 years and a crewed fully functional module in 16 months with just $17.8M. Yet you assume that SpaceX, who never built a space station before, can somehow do it even faster and cheaper? Why? On what factual basis and on which historical examples do you base this assumption on?

snoshy 6y ago

Largely because it's a fantastically expensive undertaking, and hasn't quite borne out the fruits that were speculated about over the years. USA provides a huge bulk of the funding, expertise, and personnel required to keep the program running. That's not to say that Russia, Canada, Japan, etc. don't do their part, but it's really not as much of a truly global joint effort as you might be led to believe. Then there's a genuine question of what this enormous expenditure truly buys us. NASA's budget has been strangled for decades now, and robotic probes and missions to other planets have been perennially delayed due to cost, while their scientific ROI would truly be much greater than for ISS experiments in many cases. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the ISS and manned spaceflight in general, but this kind of money does require serious explanation to Congress to justify the costs. Oh, and there's the entire money pit that is Artemis/SLS that stays on NASA books. Also, why now? The private space industry is at what seems to be the beginning of an inflection point with heavy launch capabilities (SpaceX Starship) looking likely to drive down costs by over an order of magnitude. A single Starship might provide 800 cubic meters of volume, and the whole ISS is 1,000 cubic meters. Why not wait for that to come online and then launch many many ISS' worth of volume to several labs? Lastly, the privatization of launch vehicles in particular has a lot of people questioning if private industry might be better able to step up to this challenge of manned orbiting labs. It has a potential to expand the range of solutions, massively decrease costs, and provide efficiencies that NASA might not be able to provide. When you don't have to manufacture space parts scattered all across the globe, it's easy to see why this could be cheaper and more efficient.

calibas 6y ago
>Then there's a genuine question of what this enormous expenditure truly buys us. It helps to answer the question of whether or not humans can even survive long term away from Earth. Sure, if you judge it purely by the price tag, it's not doing very well. If you judge it by the scientific, societal and philosophical implications, we're not spending nearly enough.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  > It helps to answer the question of whether or not humans can even survive long term away from Earth How will it answer that question that we already don't know of? I don't think that was the aim of ISS anyways and will definitely won't be the aim of second ISS. Humans can survive in space for year without significant physical damage but with lot of training.

stefan_ 6y ago

Because the scientific value is dubious. Most of the experiments tend to be "doing X, but in space" or looking for solutions to medical problems that only occur because you are on the ISS on the first place.

saalweachter 6y ago

The ISS is modular. There's no need for a "new" ISS, per se. You just attach new modules and, if need be, detach and deorbit old modules. It's less exciting, kind of like maintaining an old code base.

fuoqi 6y ago

There are plans on the Russian side. If it will be decided to discontinue ISS after 2026, then the new Russian modules (Nauka, Prichal, and SPM-1) will be undocked to form core of a new station. Depending on negotiations it could either become ISS-2, or sovereign OPSEK [0]. But unfortunately I don't have high hopes for those plans to be implemented in reality for a number of reasons. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E...

hindsightbias 6y ago

NASA had no vehicle for launching a replacement. It didn’t even have a domestic vehicle for launching astronauts for 9 years. SLS ate up any funds that were left. Private industry doesn’t need a station.

philistine 6y ago

It's literally the most expensive single structure built in the history of our species. Perhaps this little fact can put in perspective why we have yet to plan for another one.