NASA Open To Extending ISS Beyond 2030 (spacenews.com) 21
Jeff Foust reports via SpaceNews: A NASA official opened the door to keeping the International Space Station in operation beyond 2030 if commercial space stations are not yet ready to take over by the end of the decade. Speaking at the Beyond Earth Symposium here Nov. 2, Ken Bowersox, NASA associate administrator for space operations, said it was "not mandatory" to retire the ISS as currently planned at the end of the decade depending on the progress companies are making on commercial stations. "The timeline is flexible," he said of that transition from the ISS to commercial stations. "It's not mandatory that we stop flying the ISS in 2030. But, it is our full intention to switch to new platforms when they're available." [...]
Bowersox acknowledged that schedule depends on the readiness of those commercial stations. "When it happens is going to depend a lot the maturity of the market," he said, which includes both the status of commercial stations and non-NASA customers for them. He made it clear that NASA does not expect to be the only customer for commercial stations. NASA's current requirements for those stations anticipate having two astronauts at a time on them, less than the ISS. "We looked at what we thought would be reasonable and what would actually give us a cost savings," he said of that requirement. "My biggest concern is if we get too far ahead of where the market and NASA has to carry the full cost of the platforms for longer, and we transition too quickly," he said. That could force NASA to move money from current ISS utilization to support those stations. "If we have a badly managed transition, we could find ourselves getting weak in those areas."
Bowersox acknowledged that schedule depends on the readiness of those commercial stations. "When it happens is going to depend a lot the maturity of the market," he said, which includes both the status of commercial stations and non-NASA customers for them. He made it clear that NASA does not expect to be the only customer for commercial stations. NASA's current requirements for those stations anticipate having two astronauts at a time on them, less than the ISS. "We looked at what we thought would be reasonable and what would actually give us a cost savings," he said of that requirement. "My biggest concern is if we get too far ahead of where the market and NASA has to carry the full cost of the platforms for longer, and we transition too quickly," he said. That could force NASA to move money from current ISS utilization to support those stations. "If we have a badly managed transition, we could find ourselves getting weak in those areas."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Their so-called "space program" will probably collapse altogether.
Well, it's not really flying... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancel SLS and use the billions for Space Stations (Score:1)
Put it on hold ( just in case of the 1% chance that Starship for some unknown unknown doesn't work out ) and spend the cash on new commerical stations. Hopefully backed up with international cash.
Re: (Score:2)
this
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has already purchased something like 2 SLS rockets and HLS is no-earlier-than December 2025 so there's a couple years before any decisions like that will be made.
If there was International cash out there looking for a research station the answer is in the summary, just keep ISS going, it's already built.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they transferred the money? If not, they should just cancel the contract and pay whatever penalty. NASA should make low-cost reusability an absolute requirement. Note, I said low cost reusable .. that is, not require a $400 million refurbishment and engine disassembly-reassembly between launches like the space shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
The contract with Boeing extends to Artemis III with the option for more, so at least two more SLS units are under production. Contracts are still contracts and production is well underway, would be silly to just let it go now. NASA also is not authorized to just cancel it, that money was allocated congressionally so repealing it would also have to happen legislatively.
Both Artemis III and the first HLS mission are set for 2025 although I expect them both to be pushed. If Starship accomplishes its missio
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is dragging its feet/blocking Starship. They aren't allowing Starship to launch. The FAA has no deadline to provide approval, they can always find some reason to block it due to the large amount of rules and regulations. There's bound to be something they can use against SpaceX such as the launch will scare some birds.
Re: (Score:2)
FWS *STARTED* their approval process on October 18th.
SIX MONTHS after they could have started it.
I don't believe the conspiracy theories about deliberate delays though - it is just shitty government workers doing their usual shit minimum work at the slowest pace possible.
Same as SLS.
Administrator says x, are engineers agreeing on x? (Score:2)
"The timeline is flexible,"
Exactly how much deterioration over time inevitably happen on a space station, and is there a rising danger of some effect similar to metal fatigue appearing on parts that are in use past their originally intended service life?
I think what the administrator is absolutely sensible if only because its the only thing that keeps the lights on and the space program going regardless of whether its an insane thing to claim or not. But was the original design of the space station built around the idea of everything
Don't scrap it, preserve it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly seems like you might try out some experimental engines trying to boost it and get a 2-fer.
Worst case, you de-orbit later than planned, best case you park that sucker so high up atmospheric drag is no longer a worry and you get your more-or-less-permanent museum exhibit.
HELL NO! (Score:4, Interesting)
We need a fucking lunar base instead !! The ISS will just suck cash. NASA should be using its money to develop reusable rockets and a moon (or Mars) base. FFS ditch the ISS. Sell it to China or India so astronauts can grab some Chow Mein or Butter Chicken on the way to the moon.
Sure, we'll extend... (Score:2)
Sure, we'll extend, just show me your money.
Lessons from history unlearned (Score:1)
Re: Lessons from history unlearned (Score:1)
As there will always be a seat in a return vehicle for every person on board the station as minimum requirement, that would be no real problem in LEO.
The problem with MIR was, that there was nobody available to decide and manage the return flight, they had other objectives to deal with.
Wait a minute... (Score:2)