E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA via Reuters
The International Space Station is photographed from Atlantis during the last shuttle mission.
Now that the space shuttle fleet is out of service, the Russians are in charge when it comes to getting people to the International Space Station and back — so when a Russian space official talks about sinking the station as early as 2020, that may sound ominous to some ears.
In reality, it's not that big a deal: Vitaly Davydov, deputy director of Russia's Federal Space Agency, was simply stating current policy when he told TV interviewers that the station would be in use until 2020 or so, and that it would have to be taken out of orbit when it's obsolete.
The interview from "Good Morning Russia" ("Utro Rossii") caused a stir when a Russian-language transcript turned up on the space agency's website, but don't panic: If anything, the International Space Station will be in operation well after 2020. Russia, NASA and the other partners in the 16-nation venture are looking into extending the station's lifetime to 2028 — that is, if they can verify that its components will still be in working order that far into the future.
By 2028, still more space stations will be in orbit — almost certainly including the space bases currently being planned for launch as early as 2015 by private companies such as Bigelow Aerospace.
A close reading of the transcript shows that Davydov's comments, made during an interview focusing on last week's retirement of the shuttle fleet, are in line with the space station effort's current plans:
Q: Concerning the International Space Station, what's its fate? How long will it exist?
A: For now we've agreed with our partners that the station will be used until around 2020.
Q: And how long was it due to last?
A: Originally, 15 years.
Q: It's already been 13 years.
A: It's been 13 years since 1998, but the station's potential is much greater. I recall that when we flew Mir, we also thought it wouldn't be around all that long, but it was in operation for 15 years. [The first part of Russia's Mir space station was launched in 1986, and the complex was deorbited in 2001.]
Q: And then what happens to the International Space Station?
A: After the station completes its existence, we will be forced to sink it. It cannot be left in orbit, it's too complex, it's too heavy an object. It can leave behind lots of junk.
Q: Then will we build a new one?
A: There are a few alternatives. Of course, it's possible that [another] station wouldn't be created, but that we'd immediately try to turn our attention to the moon, to Mars. ...
Until a couple of years ago, the space station partners were working on the assumption that the 500-ton space station would have to be shut down and taken out of orbit in 2016. At the time, the partners were working out a plan that would put the station down in the Pacific just five or six years after its completion. But then the Obama White House revised NASA's space vision to extend the station's lifetime to at least 2020, providing an orbital testbed for future exploration.
NASA will have to rely on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft to transport astronauts to and from the space station for the next few years, while commercial ventures develop space taxis for NASA's future use. NASA also plans to move ahead with the development of an Orion exploration spaceship and a heavy-lift launch system for going beyond Earth orbit.
In the "Good Morning Russia" interview, Davydov speculated that a future space station could be built as a platform for trips to the moon or Mars. And he noted that Russia, like the United States, was working on a new type of spaceflight system that will have "reusable elements on a level considerably higher than today's."
"We calculate that after 2015 we will also begin to test a qualitatively new ship," Davydov said.
He was asked which country would be the first to come out with a new spaceship for exploration. "Let us compete," Davydov answered.
Update for 2 p.m. ET: Space.com's Leonard David laid out the plan for the International Space Station's eventual disposal in this article last year. Russia's Progress cargo ships would have to be modified in order to push the space station on a course to come down in the Pacific (or give the station an orbital boost in case more time is needed to execute the de-crewing and deorbiting plan). A contingency plan for deorbiting the space station has to be ready well before 2020, just in case a catastrophic event requires the abandonment and safe disposal of the football-field-sized complex.
More about the future of spaceflight:
- Russians say 'it's our space age now'
- Is America's space effort dying or evolving?
- Space station takes center stage
- Ten players in the commercial space race
Txchnologist is running a thoughtful series of reports about the future of spaceflight this week, including an analysis from our own James Oberg, NBC News' space analyst. Check out the selection so far:
- Why is NASA caving in to the Russians on the ISS?
- Q&A with 'Spacesuit' author on final-frontier fashions
- The top 10 astronauts of all time
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Carter and the Democrats allowed our Skylab to sink. Obama follows in their steps by sinking NASA
044110, what should President Carter have done? Push the station into a higher orbit with his bare hands?
The decision to NOT boost Skylab to a higher / sustainable orbit was made when the flight of Skylab 5 was cancelled (scheduled to fly in April 1974); decisions made under the leadership of presidents Nixon and Ford.
You are quick to blame the democrats for decisions made by both parties. It was the democrats AND the republicans who have failed our space program, a failure repeated over and over again for the past 40 years.
Congress had other things they wanted to spend our money on.
o44110
Thanks to obama. We flew more shuttle missions than bush had allowed for. Remember, it was bush that canceled the shuttle program with nothing to replace it until at least 2015. So who sank NASA?
flnobody:
Actually it was only one more mission than was originally planned. The Date was set with the manifest but the dates slipped. The last Atlantis flight was the only one that was not planned as it was using the spare tank that was created with the rule that there had to be a shuttle on standby incase there was damage to the shuttle during launch.
As for skylab, not much could be done about it, the reentry problem was caused by an unexpected expansion of the atmosphere, I think due to solar activity, and there just wasn't enough time to save it. It was never intended to be boosted when designed. As for its usefulness, it would have been useless as it was only rated for a 5psi (guage) plus a margin pure oxygen environment. The shuttle however had a natural earth environment so there would have had to be a chamber to allow moving between the two, along with the hours spent in that chamber adjusting.
flnobody, NASA has not been sunk. US manned spaceflight is on hiatus. The space shuttle had aged, it was expensive, capable only of low earth orbit, and frankly, was not accomplishing much. Its retirement should have come sooner.
I also echo the comments about Skylab. Jimmy Carter did not cause its demise. There was for a time a plan to save it, but solar activity caused our atmosphere to expand, increasing friction on Skylab, thus slowing it down, which eventually caused it to drop out of orbit. Regards....
Why so many people continue to spew the falsehood that NASA is dead or "sank" is beyond me. NASA still exists, it will continue to exist, they will regain their ability to access space, and then all those who have gone on this garbage spewing adventure about the "death of NASA at the hands of Obama" are going to (or should) feel silly.
Yes, I think we'd all love to see NASA have budget increases as opposed to the current state of things but that's politics for ya. But NASA is not dead. American manned spaceflight is not dead. NASA has not been sunk. You could say that American manned spaceflight is dormant but that still isn't quite accurate. It's more accurate to say that America's ability to access space on our own ships is dormant, since American's are still going to be going into space (just on Russian spaceships). No one is happy about the spaceship gap but it's here now and we have to face it like adults, moving forward with our new space agenda (whatever that may be) and stop the blame game. It's not any one person's fault. All those who are at fault have been blamed, a lot. Why continue kicking that dead horse?
Skylab was lost through both higher than expected solar activity that 'heated and expanded' the upper atmosphere enough to create infinitesimally greater drag at its altitude...plus delays in the development of the Shuttle that pushed it back from an originally planned first launch in 1977 to 1981.
Had it been possible, they were planning on a Shuttle-Skylab rendezvous and attachment of a small propulsion package to either raise its orbit, or achieve a controlled de-orbit as early as the second flight...
Now, if you think Jimmy Carter could influence the Sun...I want some of what you're smoking.
mob
Maybe it would actually be better if NASA just lost its funding and drop down to minimal function (back to the old NACA days). Now I am not saying that to dis NASA or their space activities, but the reality is that in some ways, it may just be better for the nation for it to receive the funding that it can receive consistent political support for. Politicians are tending to treat NASA as a jobs program, which worries me because in a lot of ways that stops the growth of the private sector, but it also makes NASA into something that it isn't.
To me, NASA should be a place that has a vision for something, and vision shouldn't be a jobs program for congressional districts, just like the military has been for quite a few districts. If NASA isn't going to get the consistent political support, then maybe it would be better for the 'mission' to be scaled back.
Frank,
Of course Jimmy Carter should have controlled the sun, didn't you know that (sarcasm)
The Skylab 5 mission WAS intended to boost Skylab, using the service module rocket. That mission was cancelled when Congress decided that they were done buying Saturn rockets.
Well, I personally think that if you are going to have a "vision" it should be a lofty but achievable goal. And I agree that NASA should not be a jobs program. But I do feel that the space program and America in general could benefit from a large scale works program aimed at providing the massive infrastructure needed to achieve lofty goals.
So, I think the appropriate course of action would be the creation of a new agency to operate in tandem with NASA. NASA would likely be smaller and more streamlined, while this new agency would function as the worker bees to accomplish NASA's goals. I know this can be construed as a very bad idea (I am not suggesting cutting out private industry, quite the opposite); I hope you all don't take it as me saying I want to grow government. I do not want to grow government. But I do see the potential benefits of a large make work program that enables great things to happen for the space industry. Putting Americans to work is the heart and soul of my idea. I want to see unemployment at historic lows while providing good quality employment that enables humanity to reach for the stars.
One could think of it like Tennessee Valley Authority meets the industrial boom that fed World War 2 except without the war and without the river strangling dams. The space industry needs certain infrastructure and the idea that I am pushing would enable a vast infrastructure that in essence would transform America from a weapon building military giant superpower to a space faring nation unlike anything the world has seen before (and still with a defense structure second to none).
This idea is a work in progress so any suggestions to help better refine the idea are always welcome.
mob:
I am not disagreeing with the concept, what I don't see however is the sustained political support that is necessary to make it work. That is the missing piece. Europe may actually have the right balance. They don't have a massive space effort, but I think they have one that is far more sustainable.
As for the new agency, I don't see how that would be any different than the subcontracting process that goes on now.
Again, I am not disputing the benefits of NASA, I would love to see NASA's budget doubled or tripled, but I just don't see the support for that. Even in here, we get these yahoo's constantly complaining about NASA's outrageous costs (yet they defend the complete waste of money that the F35 is and its greater than a trillion dollar cost). The support just isn't there. I even talk to people complaining about NASA's wasteful spending, when they get their paycheck from NASA (indirectly). Yes that is illogical, I know, but that is reality.
I think it is obvious that Barry played with Barbie Dolls instead of model rockets,
Not that there is anything wrong with Barbie Dolls.
But then what does Obama have a passion for? He dosen't talk about Michell or the kids much. Not so much about anything except scaring the crap out of old folks and veterans and bashing people who think we spend too much money.
You do know that what you said is totally offensive right? (oh wait, you are just trolling. Well sorry, I won't stoop down to your level of sewer scum.
Nope. Guess yopu better explain it to me Mr. Smartypants.
I won't bother, you aren't worth violating the CoH for.
.
sell it to the highest bidder....for all we know china may need more room on thier station. [end sarcasm, albeit true]
Obama has made a mistake cancelling the shuttle program. Sure the dumber bush brother authorized it, but the plans are always pliable, as they are now. Both parties will scuttle anything that does not dircectly attribute into votes. Certainly a good thing about private enterprise may possibly be more prudent use of resources.(no promises though)....yes carter could of pushed skylab around a bit, being he was an N engineer, I think he considered all the possibilities, but looking back, all this space junk is valuable, a plan to at least get some of it to the moon for when intelligent people again lead the country is something that should at least be on the back burner. That being said, a double ferris wheel space station (initially an inflatable structure that is hardened later) with artificial gravity is a good concept to counter the bone loss issue of weightlessness....the genuis of heinlien and kubrick is starting to come around and kick us in the butt, again. As usual, nature points up the folly of man. An article on exactly what it would take to move the station to an out of the way orbit or even a light descent onto the lunar surface would make interesting reading, as long as it does not contain the biased my way or the highway conjective conclusions journalists so much love for headlines...rather, three or more informed opinions on the possible methods and feasibility from nasa, the russian space agency and and an independant panel of germans or other can do engineer types. I wish, I wish, I wish for can do politicians, not these clowns in limosuines.
ray:
Actually no the plans are not pliable. There is a HUGE supply chain that needs to be present and most of that chain was shut down by the time Obama became president. For example, it takes at least 3 years to build an External Tank. This is from the procurement of the raw materials to completion. Once that supply chain is shut down, it is EXTREMELY difficult to start it up again.
The problem of moving the space station around is that the modules are connected with an interconnect that cannot take much flexing (there are multiple types of adapters on the different station modules). So firing off thrusters to change its orbit will exceed the limitations of that flexing and quite possibly cause irreparable damage. It would be almost impossible to retrofire around the moon as well to allow the moon to capture the station and let it settle into its orbit.
derpy, shouldn't the survival of the ISS depend upon its likelihood of accomplishing something of value beyond its costs? So far the science from the ISS has been scarce. I doubt it's recovering even its maintenance costs, much less amortization costs and such. I'm afraid the ISS is just another white elephant. I wish it weren't so. Regards....
"sell it to the highest bidder....for all we know china may need more room on thier station. [end sarcasm, albeit true]"
Doesn't matter. Not entirely ours to sell. What does the 'I' in ISS stand for, again?
"Obama has made a mistake cancelling the shuttle program. Sure the dumber bush brother authorized it, but the plans are always pliable,"
And as someone else said, not reversing someone else's cancellation is not the same as you cancelling it. (yes, I know Reagan did that with the B-1) Once you shut down the manufacturing support, you're committed.
To the best of my knowledge there is no Vasimr on the space station at this time. I know there are supposedly plans to put a testbed up there but currently there is no Vasimr aboard.
The American portion of the space station cannot be sold to anyone. It is a multinational structure and it is essentially as though you are crossing from us to russian to european territory. The agreement regulating the space station itself is worded in such a way that it can't be sold. ITAR regulations would prevent it from being sold to anyone outside the US anyways.
Why all this constant talk about China anyways. It is almost like people are desiring to be run into abject poverty and be controlled. Come on guys, the US is starting to become a religious theocracy that really has no interest in itself, just in serving some overlord.
Frank
Actually it was Carter that restarted the B1 program, but that isn't the same thing because the B1 hadn't gone into production, it was still a prototype, so there was no supply chain. The exact comparison would be if the USAF wanted to build more B1B's. The supply chains are gone.
Also, the B1 was heavily modified so it really wasn't the same plane (it switched from a high altitude bomber to a low altitude bomber) hence the designation change from B1A to B1B.
Seldom do I respond to the comments, so smile.
Man frank, just can't see it as an engineering challange can ya. And yes jonathon, on both issues it's just legal politics, heavy hitting lawyers could easily torsion the life outta the opposition an sell whatever they wanted, perhaps we overlooking the possiblity of a russian buyout, but never say never...yes, the space station can be moved, they do it often and quickly, for god's sake, the flex is even engineered into the structure, it creaks all day long like any ship would.besides, peicemeal it's still a worthy endeavour..."bunch of stiff ass brits" ...besides, it was sarcasm, albit a really good idea...so it is not moved whole...big deal, let the sarcastic bidder worry about that...salvage is still a viable concept....every nut bolt and solar panel and hose and resistor is one less that a needy moon colony (perhaps even a private moon base as I desire for my company) is ONE LESS THAT MUST BE LAUNCHED FROM TERRA FIRMA!!!...but I know some of you are more about countering any concept (that is part of the internet trolling thing so many of us keep suggesting you knock off) than prooffering a new concept...a bit of a complex with ya's I suppose...no problem if it keeps your ticker going but not exactly the team spirit the world needs right now. I like commenting on the article (and yes sometimes I can't help the human nature of jilting the latest political opinion). Whatever. Frank, OK great, so you do not like the concept of a national areospace plane, great, no scramjets, do YOU really think we should just give up on the concept of a no bounce space ship with wings?? Why? cause you say so? I gotta a suggestion, how about YOU start telling US what to do as a nation?? Ya, frank the exalted one, knows all....ha...I offer suggestions and sarcasm, I want the nation to move forward, I have a personal interest in the business end of space and long ago put my best foot forward in science and engineering....perhaps I am a nobody, but I will always keep on pushing as hard as I can to do my part to advance mankinds knowledge....tell us frank, should we also give up on lighter than air materials research??...ok I'll quit Looking back, sorry frank if I seem tough, I really do think the discord is neccesary to keep ivory towers in check, carry on ensign, and with that, gotta cue the GFR album were an american band so I can listen to quit looking back......jonathan, remember, those already space based panels are worth a small fortune as long as their up there, and worth almost nothing in the drink.....<end sarcasm, again?>
lol@ray
Wonders what your company does?
Or are you an IT consultant that just wants to work from the moon where you don't have to worry about being interrupted by the boss every other minute. lol
As for the selling, that is an issue for ITAR and the government to approve. Currently it is against US law to sell, so you would need to get congress to approve that.
gosh I forgot to mention the nasp...if I forget to mention it in a space post, ya all remind me, we gotta use every available avenue to get this space program back on track if we want to drag this dream of seven deacades into existance.
"gosh I forgot to mention the nasp.."
Continue to forget it. Scramjets are useful for hypersonic cruise within the atmosphere, but they're more trouble than they're worth for getting to orbit.
Alan, heartfelt thanks for this: the least hysterical reaction to the Faux 'News' sabre rattling. At least we have something rational to link to; when the McCarthyite wing of the Space Party regurgitate this propaganda masquerading as news.
Speaking of which:
@Ray Smith try reading Wayne Hale on the "Shuttle scuttle." I quote: "That horse has left the barn. " And he should know...
blah blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1219932905350.html
"heinlien"
Good Grief! :(
blah en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kellyposter1970.jpg
(Curse you newsvine)
As with ANY home, you have to maintain it or it WILL fall apart. Why would you abandon a mansion such as this when it is all paid off and all the taxes have been paid up? All you have to do now is keep up with the maintenance. If anything, lease it out to paying customers in the commercial sector to pay for the maintenance. If something fails, disconnect it and let it reenter the Earth's atmosphere and replace it with new and improved modules as necessary. New solar panels or at least the swivel/gimbal that is grinding itself apart anyway...
Also, I thought I read on here or another site that they were contemplating breaking off a module or two to use for a habitation module on the trip to the Asteroid. You can break off several modules for multiple missions to various asteroids and the moon and Mars. Start surveying the asteroids and moon now for those rare Earth metals that we so desperately need and use the orbiting platforms as waystations for visiting crews prior to landing.
Doing this will spur the fledgling space economy as well. If you build it, they will come? How about, if you build it, you can visit! Commercial or State-sponsored, it doesn't matter- just visit: BYOF, BYOW, clean up and turn the lights off before you leave.
My understanding of the manned space station is that, like the manned moon landing expeditions, is it mostly a propaganda exercise and doesn't have sufficient scientific return to justify its expense. Yes, lets "sink" this silly space station and "sink" other manned space projects as well. These are simply unnecessary, too expensive, and provide little in the way of scientific return. Our tax dollars are far more efficiently spent on unmanned explorers. To all the moon-nuts and Mars-nuts out there: by all means send yourselves to another planet. But please do it with your own money!
How myopic...I weep for you, Sir.
:-/
jeffrey
The engineering exercise alone is worth the cost.
Jeffrey erwin, with all do respect, your "understanding" of the manned space program as a whole is severely lacking (to say the least). For instance, you would like to rely solely on robots to explore the solar system. You'd be content to never have people in space. That's your opinion and you're entitled. But if America and the world were to follow your logic then we'd never learn how to travel in space safely and mankind would be forever locked onto this planet. I agree with [0.o]'s analysis that your view on this matter is extremely myopic.
This is only the beginning of the space age. Years down the line thanks to manned spaceflight in this era humanity will be able to travel throughout the solar system. A trip to a Mars habitat may be no more trouble than a trip from Ohio to Beijing is today by airplane. You people can not see the forest for the trees. Take a broader view of this issue jeffrey.
We are all aware of the costs associated with human spaceflight. Yet you, and those like you, are unaware of the payoff, the benefits. The single greatest benefit of manned spaceflight, in my opinion, is that manned spaceflight will get easier, more efficient, and safer. Beyond that the medical benefits are vast. Beyond that the technical benefits are also numerous. Look at the bigger picture Jeffrey. If we invest in this future then we'll be able to move beyond an Earth-only existence. That may not be worth much to you, but to me it's invaluable.
mob, you ask us to take a broader view of manned spaceflight. Fair enough. I urge you and others to take a longer view. What's the hurry? I sense panic from a lot of you folks and I don't think it's warranted.
Also, it is relevant that we don't have any money. Sorry about the wars and the waste and the graft and the giveaways and the stupidity, but anything that depends on govt and costs money needs to contract. That includes your own personal most super-favoritest program.
I don't know how all of this will play out.... but space is in our (humanity's) future. Survive!
Darn
The impetus is this.
We have essentially wasted 40 years. This isn't a problem with what NASA can do, but with what it has been allowed to do. There is no point even talking about a longer view if that longer view is just an excuse to not properly invest in it.
In addition, our economy is running out of areas that we can truly compete and excel in. That means we need to start inventing and developing new industries. Maybe space isn't it, maybe it is, but we need to invest in different industries. I personally want to see much more investment in space, but I also want to see it in areas that I am personally not involved in. This isn't betting the farm, this is betting on the FARMS, with the hope that a few of them break open and start the country creating real wealth again, instead of the shifting around of papers that we have been doing for the last 30 years.
Jonathan wrote:
Presumably via the space shuttle and the ISS, which IMO have accomplished little. Or by virtue of the fact that there has been no clear purpose for putting man in space beyond studying man in space.
On the other hand, unmanned spaceflight has accomplished a great deal in the past 40 years and it continues as I write. One very exciting area is that within a few years, thanks to Kepler and ground-based observations, we will have a census of several thousand planets within a few dozen light-years of earth. We'll be able to extrapolate and know whether earth-type planets are common or rare. That's cool.
Survive!
darn:
No, we have wasted 40 years by not doing anything with them. The vehicle and the station are just tools. They can be used properly or they can be used improperly. They were (and are) not being used properly. NASA has been forced to treat the Shuttle and ISS as end points. But they shouldn't be. They are research programs. So when the shuttle finished its test program, we should have started on a second shuttle program. We should have made plans for how to utilize it, and not just go up and sit there for a few weeks, but to take advantage of the opportunity. We didn't do that. Why, because we didn't give it enough money.
And I am not lowering the accomplishments of the unmanned space program. We need both. Now as far as Kepler, exactly what economic benefit is that going to give the nation. I am not trying to justify it financially, but what the country needs is new industries to look forward to. If we let the few opportunities that we have to develop those new industries to stagnate, we are going to lose out as a nation. Others are going to take advantage of it.
I've an opinion here and you may share it. I feel that the shuttle and ISS were compromised to near death. In order to be all-purpose, they ended up being no-purpose. A serious question: What should the space shuttle have done instead of what it did, namely launch satellites earlier in its history and build the ISS later on? And the ISS seems to me to have little purpose beyond having something out in space to maintain. So, same question, what should the ISS be doing?
Again, I have opinions on these matters, but I do change my opinions now and then in response to more info. One oft-stated opinion of mine is that there isn't much useful stuff for humans to do in space at this time. I think that will change, but now, no. Then again, it may not change, ever. What might robotics do with a thousandfold increase in computing power, nanotechnology, and major software advances, all of which are likely to happen over the next few decades?
Another serious question: Given that the NASA budget will not increase as you would like, what would you have NASA do with, say, its current budget of about $18 billion/year for the next 15 years.
I enjoy your thoughtful commentary on this and similar matters.
The basic philosophy that I have with regards to the shuttle is that it is the only vehicle that could bring things back. And I don't mean satellites, I mean cargo. So without the shuttle, there is no way that ISS can do any form of manufacturing to financially justify it because now we can't bring whatever would be made on the station back.
ISS to me is an engineering exercise, learn how to do it here so that when we do it again, we don't make the same mistakes twice. Yes it is expensive, but needed in my mind, because we can correct the problems in the first one. By letting the shuttle sit for 30 years before we built the station, we destroyed any hope of being able to do something with the shuttle that is unique to the shuttle and valuable.
Well I am not sure, I think that NASA needs to focus on things that are sustainable and continuous, not big programs. Unfortunately I think that NASA's days are over for big projects (that will be successful, I am not going to say that some politician is going to use it to boast his campaign), and should focus on the sustainable smaller projects. That is obviously not what I would like, but it is what I think should happen with the funds that will be made available to it.
Oh, Jonathan, I didn't answer your question about Kepler. There is no economic benefit to it that I can see. While I (and you too I bet) believe strongly that the benefits should outweigh the costs, not all benefits are tangible.... which makes the question of "To do or not to do" a tough one sometimes. Regards....
The point of why I made that comment is that it shouldn't have to have an economic return. The thing about space in general is that we are at a stage where the risks are so high financially and the investment is also high, that the only entity that can incubate space industry is government. So by pulling back, it is just going to make it much harder for private industry to get ramped up.
Are we really pulling back? I think we humans are just temporarily stuck with buying passage from the Russians at $50+ million a pop. It may get people asking what value we get for our money and that's fair. NASA ought to be able to answer that.... as should every other govt agency. (Private sector must answer to its stockholders.... supposed to anyway.)
NASA does intend to return humans to space within a few years. I would rather they not, but I have lost that argument. Still, I hope that this time there actually is some point to going. That has been lacking for around 40 years. Why specifically put humans up there?
Is private industry, or govt for that matter, clamouring for zero gravity manufacturing capability. I'll grant that, given that the ISS was built (despite my objections), that it would be nice to get some return, but I don't think that even the variable costs are worth it.
Your point about the shuttle being the only vehicle that could bring mass quantities of stuff back to Earth is a good one, and one I hadn't considered before. Let me fire off a hastily formed opinion though and say that the need for something should precede the something. For example, you should not buy a treadmill to see if you'll use it. Rather, if you find yourself driving to the gym 4 times/week to use their treadmill, maybe you should buy one.
Just some thoughts.....
but if you don't have that something in place (the shuttle) then anyone planning to try and even experiment with trying to make an industrial activity in space won't even consider it, because they can't get that product back. Look at the lead times to building a new vehicle. Say it takes a decade to build a new shuttle. That means that someone would have to sit on their investment, not actually making money, before they will be able to make any money from it. It just won't happen. It will never happen. That is why the government needs to incubate this, as well as other 'ventures'. Not all of them are going to succeed, we know that. But if we don't do it, we will never move forward economically and eventually every other country is going to overtake us.
The reality that needs to be considered is that the US currently does NOTHING that can't be done elsewhere. It needs to move forward so that new industries develop that in the end the US will be back to making money because nobody else does it. If that is lost, guess what, the country loses.
My biggest personal disappointment is that we had the shuttle, now we have the station. We should have them both together. Because right now, with the loss of the shuttle, we no longer have the impetus to experiment on the station, because even if we do make something useful, we can't bring it back. It is a lost opportunity.
@DarnThatDream, I also have concerns regarding the utility of human spaceflight at this time.
Still, as corny as it sounds, I believe that it is our destiny for humanity to eventually "leave the cradle"; that someday there will be people living throughout our Solar System, and eventually move to planets orbiting distant stars.
It is essential for the long-term survival of humanity to not keep all our eggs in one basket (Earth).
The primary and best contribution of the International Space Station is learning how to live and build in space. Every item that works unfailingly for years on end is a testament to superiour engineering. Every item that breaks when on orbit is a fantastic learning opportunity.
If we are to be a space-faring species, then the ISS is an essential step. Failure in low Earth orbit is usually survivable. A similar failure on the Moon, or on the way to Mars, is often not.
The ISS is our first step to the Universe.
(Of course, the Universe will still be there in the future, so as to the final question of "why now?", other than our impatience to see the future arrive in our lifetime, we can wait. We now have the ability to go to Mars, and we will do so when we have the will.)
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM★Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Jonathan, small payloads can return and when we start kicking ourselves about not having the capability to return large payloads, well we can develop the means. It does not necessarily need to be manned, and in fact I would argue that it should not. I would expect the lead times to remain a problem but less so than for a manned vehicle.
Michael, I don't know that I believe in destiny, rather I'm an existentialist, at least if I understand that term correctly. "There are things you do and there are things you don't do. The things you do define you." Understand that "you" means "you, the individual". Don't get me wrong -- in Independence Day (great movie), I rooted for the humans. My mom and dad are humans. Some of my best friends are humans. I'd like us to get off this planet eventually and I think we will. Destiny? I don't know.
This may sound strange coming from me, but I'd like to see us take more risks.... but for something worth the risks, not launching satellites, not building space stations that themselves have little purpose, not (sorry) teachers in space, certainly not congressmen in space. Lots of people are willing to take those big risks. I say let them. Space travel is risky from takeoff to landing and I think it will always remain so. Once you allow big risks in pursuit of big payoffs, things may start to happen. I think the first humans on Mars should stay there and be the first Martians. I suspect the public isn't ready for that, but I know I'm far from alone on the matter.
Some more thoughts....
darn
With the development lead times, that just isn't possible. And to be honest, it sounds pretty bad that here you are defending unmanned exploration, and yet you won't accept defence of manned. Seriously, there is no expansion of business in the unmanned side of things. The Satellite market is mature, the launch for that market is mature. So if you want the economic aspect of the US economy to remain stagnant, then that is fine. I get a lot of that, and when I tell them, so when other countries take the bull by the horn and invest, what is the US going to do economically. They ask for an example, I give them high speed rail as an example. They just sort of go, well I don't know, we will force them or beg for others to give us the business. That just isn't going to happen, because if the US doesn't take the lead on this (and other industries), then the US will be left behind, and that means that the US will not grow.
The US can't compete in a lot of industries anymore, Part of that is just plain labor cost economics, part of that is just plain short sightedness on the part of business in the US. This is a chance (and again, not just space, but other industries that need to be incubated) for the US to regain the lead. Other countries are spending billions of dollars on infrastructure and economic development. The US is bitching about stupid things and refuses to do anything. Well the US is going to be left behind. When that happens, what are you going to say then?
The attitude that you have is similar to the attitude that the US took in the early days of the aero industry. (it really is). It wasn't until WWI that the US took any interest, and it wasn't until WWII that the US took real interest. Look at all that government spending. This was for something that for years people thought was just play, just a toy and would never be practical.
So the US aerospace industry, TOTALLY dependent on government funding.
Jonathan, it seems our biggest area of disagreement is your notion that NASA should pursue objectives that help our economy, while I think that they should pursue objectives with the greatest science potential. Those are not mutually exclusive goals, but they are different. You stated earlier (I think it was you anyway) that you favor big govt investments in science/engineering even if it's non-NASA stuff, in order to jump start the next big thing in the US, not overseas. You see it as a means to some other end. I think the end itself should be the motivator. We may make serendipitous discoveries along the way, but again, those should not be the motive.
I can't defend manned exploration because I just haven't seen much payback, even allowing that nontangible benefits are present. This does not mean that that state will continue. I see potential for humans adding value to several mission types, although I wouldn't go gungho on any of them just now. (I'm back to "What's the hurry?" here.) An observatory on the far side of the moon might need a few folks. Asteroid capture and mining, maybe. Space-based solar energy microwaved in our direction, maybe. A colony on Mars with an archive of human history to guard against an ELE, maybe.
I did not arrive at these points of view recently. I've watched the space program for a long time.... and it got profoundly uninteresting beginning with Apollo/Soyuz, Skylab, then the shuttle, and continuing with the ISS. My attitude would probably be different if the space shuttle and ISS weren't the white elephants I perceive them to be. I know Michael thinks that the ISS is good even if only to show how not to do it next time. I get that, but I would like to see something of value come out of it in its current state.... and I'm almost certain that nothing will. I am waiting and hoping however.
So I'm back to Cassini, Messenger, Dawn, New Horizons, Kepler, Juno, Opportunity, Juno, MRO -- awesome. Regards....
Darn
You should do some research on the impact of the Apollo program. It has been very clearly stated many times that if it wasn't for the astronauts, then the value of the samples returned would have been far less than what it was.
Indeed, and the idea of training a geologist to be an astronaut (Harrison Schmitt) was a good one, as opposed to training astronauts to be second-rate geologists. I have to wonder though how many unmanned sample return missions could we have done for the same money? I don't know the answer, but clearly humans add value. Do we know more from the rock samples returned by Apollo or from unmanned missions that map the moon down to a few meters resolution, target water ice, categorize the entire surface as to mineral content, measure its tenuous atmosphere, measure its nearly nonexistent magnetic field, measure altitudes?
The research I may do is to collect the money spent on manned versus unmanned missions over the past 50 years and then compare the science returned. When I think of the mapping missions to the planets and moons, including our own planet and moon, weather satellites, GPS, x-ray, infrared, microwave, gamma ray, ultraviolet telescopes, the comparison looks bad for manned spacecraft. Then there's Hubble which famously needed a human component. Weren't they originally planning to bring it back down for servicing? I'll give it a look soon.
Actually once the J missions started, the astronauts were largely trained to be geologists. That was probably the most important thing that Schmitt did as an astronaut is that he made sure the astronauts were trained as geologists. (read the transcripts from the missions. These guys were serious).
and nobody is suggesting that manned missions be conducted for missions that are better done as unmanned missions. That was tried and it was determined that it isn't something that is cost effective. The point is that you don't need to exclude one to have the other. Do you honestly think that unmanned science missions would have received on cent more funding if there was no manned program? no. As we have recently seen, the funding just gets taken away and then some as the James Webb Telescope looks to be cancelled as well.
Well, at this time I expect virtually everything to be cut some regardless of utility.... and what else can we do but that? I'm often shocked at how few folks care about, say, the Dawn mission. Most people don't care what Opportunity is doing on Mars. After the first few photos, their attention went elsewhere. Then again the shuttle and the ISS haven't inspired the folks I encounter. The fact is that few care, even if they claim they do. Nice chatting with you. Gotta take my dog out, then crash.
Alan, Your reporting is top notch in a factual sense but as a businessman you need some improvements. Think of how much more web traffic you could have generated if you had gone with a headline like ... "Russia Plans to Sink the International Space Station in 2020". Such a headline would have generated enormous consternation among the masses and greatly increased your readership (with people who don't actually read, but who cares?).
You really should consider emulating the folks over at FOX. Seems to be working for them.
BOOO!
Even if your comment was made in jest I say Booo to it sir. Brad that is a horrible suggestion and I really hope you are just being facetious. I can never tell when people are joking. And I hate that philosophy of riling up the masses with misleading or inaccurate headlines.
Darn it, another opportunity to overhype the news wasted. But I guess this makes up for "UFO Sighted in Russia ... Right on Time":
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/05/6593359-ufo-sighted-in-russia-right-on-time
how about, russia plans to turn the space station into an interstellar space vessel with the government of the united states as the initial crew.
Better yet the next article should have the headline "U.S. Government Kills NASA, Feeds the World". (killing and eating should appeal to everyone, right?...)
;-P
.
As the world's money supply continues to dwindle, it stands to reason that there will come a day when the mere task of keeping the space station aloft will be in question. Already there is talk of it becoming obsolete. As it is, it looks like it is tied together by a rat's nest of strings and wires! A rotting bucket of bolts, in my estimation. If and when its use is no longer needed, it will not be in anyone's benefit to continue to fund its operation.
Then, with the rush to get to Mars, you can be sure that more money than we can afford will be thrown at this crazy bottomless pit of an endeavor!
All Martian flights will be a one-way undertaking. I daresay, once a manned probe is sent out and nothing is ever heard from it, we will all learn at long last that what's more important is right here - at our feet.
Earth is in dire need of a make-over! Should we not devote all the resources we can get our hands on to the job of fixing what is broken here?
john
That was actually the same attitude in Europe when talking about the voyages westward.
People that think like "John Shanton" are the true haters of humankind. We are closer than ever to feeding our 6-billion+ human population on a daily basis simply because innovation has expanded the pie.
Look what has happened during this financial crisis where family wealth has been greatly depleted. It is far more difficult today to feed our own families. Once the innovators get back on track and small businesses start creating jobs once more, we will once again get even closer to feeding our 6-billion+ human population on a daily basis.
You can not just move money around! Money needs to be accelerated. Innovation makes money move faster. Want proof? Just look at all the innovation at Apple. People are buying iPhone and iPad products as fast as they can build them. Unfortunately the employees at Apple are not in the same boat.
They look out there and do not see as many innovative products to buy. (You can only buy so many fancy cars.)
But, what if they could see innovation in healthcare that actually lowered costs? What if they saw "artificial gravity" and suddenly a hotel in space became more attractive for a vacation. What if the LaGrange points, the Moon and Mars all had destination hotels? What if our listening technology from satellites became so sophisticated that terroristic military organizations could no longer target people in their own country for elimination?
If government had not funded basic research (at relatively low cost) we would not have many of the things we use every day. If we did have them they would be at far higher cost.
If you want more jobs in ten years, jack up basic research that big companies want to do but fail to do because it is too expensive. New industries will arise. Things we buy will be less expensive. And, everyone around the world will finally have a full belly.
Or, you could just be John Shanton and not even understand that the "money supply" has been greatly raised during this financial crisis. "As of 4 November 2009 the Federal Reserve reported that the U.S. dollar monetary base is $1,999,897,000,000. This is an increase of 142% in 2 years."
magnets
The question isn't the money base, it is the money base in relation to the total debt load.
Overall though, I agree with your basic premise, I just don't think the last few years should be an indicator of things to come because otherwise it will prevent the entrepreneurs from getting us out of the hole.
We do need to be extremely careful how we get out of it too. We can't rely on the gimmicks that we have over the last 30 years. We need to reinvent our economy.