4 ms·
Seems like a waste to throw away the ISS. I also disagree with the idea of corporations having to independently duplicate efforts instead of collaborating on a
by yellowapple 3y ago
Seems like a waste to throw away the ISS. I also disagree with the idea of corporations having to independently duplicate efforts instead of collaborating on a shared station.
Taking NASA's rationale at face value (namely, that the bones of the ISS are too old and that adding new modules to replace the old ones is out of the question): what design decisions will the ISS' successor(s) take to avoid this same exact situation 30 years from now?
- edgyquant 3y agoThink it was initially planned for destruction in 2021 (maybe 2019?) so it’s already going a decade past its initial date.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>Seems like a waste to throw away the ISS. Aerospace vehicles and structures have a limited shelf life. Patching ageing stuff up in space is expensive. So building a new one from scratch might be cheaper long run.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoWith that said, I wonder if there's any value in taking some chunks of the existing modules and bringing them back down the well to examine what several decades in a space environment did to them. There's gotta be something valuable to learn from seeing how materials exposed to a high-rad environment with frequent temperature cycling behave after several decades.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago> something valuable Something? Yes. Valuable enough to bring even one down? Doubtful. Anyway, the last vehicle which could do this was decommed in 2011.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoDon't they have resupply missions to the ISS? I'm talking about cutting out chunks of the modules, stuffing them in the returning capsule and letting that go back down to earth. Not whole modules.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoIt would be cool to bring a module back to hang in the Smithsonian.
- deprecative 3y agoIt would but we have no means of doing this at the moment.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoDoes Starship have sufficient return volume?
- deprecative 3y agoI am not sure. It's not a present reality, though.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoAgreed, and a fair observation. Consider if it will be available prior to deorbiting. That's the question. Snatch them orbital goods before the gravity well consumes.
- NortySpock 3y agoAs far as I understand it, the front-runner to build a commercial space station is Axiom Space. Their CEO is Michael T. Suffredini, who was the ISS program manager for 10 years. Given that the stated mission is to own and operate a space station -- and rent out the space inside it -- I assume they're paying particular attention to how to reduce the cost of operations. In particular, on the current ISS, it strikes me that a lot of things require spacewalks to replace parts that seem like they could have lived inside, rather than outside. Things like batteries, coolant pumps, and power regulators seem to constantly require a spacewalk to repair or replace. Even though it probably requires some extra improvements to improve safety in order to be able to put the machinery in "a utility closet" rather than outside, I assume Axiom Space Stations will be designed to be maintained from the inside, rather than the outside. I doubt that the new station will last much longer than 30 years -- but I also doubt it will cost a billion dollars a year (I mean literally) to run. https://www.axiomspace.com/team/michael-suffredini https://www.axiomspace.com/team/michael-suffredini
- jqpabc123 3y agoI also disagree with the idea of corporations having to independently duplicate efforts instead of collaborating on a shared station. I disagree with the idea of corporations having any interest in duplicating the ISS. ISS was first and foremost a cash sink --- which most corporate shareholders are perfectly content to leave to government.