Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Shuttles - Space Station
  NASA manager: De-orbiting ISS in 2016

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   NASA manager: De-orbiting ISS in 2016
ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 07-12-2009 06:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Washington Post is reporting in Monday's edition that NASA plans to de-orbit the ISS in the first quarter of 2016 due to lack of funding past 2015.
"In the first quarter of 2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft," says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini.

That's a polite way of saying that NASA will make the space station fall back into the atmosphere, where it will turn into a fireball and then crash into the Pacific Ocean. It'll be a controlled reentry, to ensure that it doesn't take out a major city. But it'll be destroyed as surely as a Lego palace obliterated by the sweeping arm of a suddenly bored kid.

This, at least, is NASA's plan, pending a change in policy. There's no long-term funding on the books for international space station operations beyond 2015.

Suffredini raised some eyebrows when, at a public hearing last month, he declared flatly that the plan is to de-orbit the station in 2016. He addressed his comments to a panel chaired by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine that is charged by the Obama administration with reviewing the entire human spaceflight program. Everything is on the table -- missions, goals, rocket design. And right there in the mix is this big, fancy space laboratory circling the Earth from 220 miles up.

Greggy_D
Member

Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 07-12-2009 07:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Greggy_D   Click Here to Email Greggy_D     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You have got to be kidding me...

I think too much money has been invested in the ISS to mothball it in 2016. I see this statement as a political ploy.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 07-12-2009 07:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It would be good to invest the ISS money into a different program, though I do not see the ISS ending in 2016.

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 07-12-2009 07:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
At first blush this seems like the old government agency ploy for funding, e.g. the National Park Service saying they will have to shut down the Washington Monument as a scare tactic to get more funds sent their way.

On the other hand, the ISS and Shuttle have such a symbiotic relationship that it's almost hard to imagine one without the other.

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 07-12-2009 11:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
The Washington Post is reporting in Monday's edition that NASA plans to de-orbit the ISS in the first quarter of 2016 due to lack of funding past 2015.
With the consent of the "international" partners?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-13-2009 12:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I believe Mike Suffredini's comments have been misunderstood, or at least are somewhat out of context.

Here is Suffredini's same quote from the Augustine Commission meeting as used in the article, together with what immediately preceded and followed it...

Of course, we all know we are going to retire the shuttle. The plan is to retire it at the end of 2010, and what that left us with was a significant gap in our capability to the resources to orbit between the time it retires and, at that time, the planned life of the International Space Station, which is -- our plan is to operate through the end of 2015 and then de-orbit it in the first quarter of 2016.

And what we ended up with through our analysis is we found out we needed about 60 metric tons of upmass. And when we look at the vehicles that we have today that are available to us or will be available to us soon, we have, of course, we all know, the Russian Progress vehicle for cargo and the Soyuz vehicle for crew.

We recently had the first flight of the automated transfer vehicle, which is the European contribution to payback which we call -- what we call common systems ops cost, and that's going to be four vehicles -- four more vehicles, the first one plus four. And that will be each year starting in '10. So '10, '11, '12, '13 will have an ATV vehicle.

In addition to that, we're about to fly our first H-II transfer vehicle, which is the JAXA contribution, also as a payback for common systems ops costs. That will be one per year through the life of the program, starting with their first flight, which is going to occur here in September.

Now, all of those vehicles together flying through those times that I just told you about, we still have a 60-metric-ton shortfall.

I think it is clear that Suffredini wasn't stating the de-orbit of the ISS as a point of finality, but rather a point of history -- what the plan had been and now we are considering ways -- post-space shuttle -- to keep the ISS tended, in regards to both its crew and supplies.

But if you believe my conclusion is incorrect, Alan Ladwig, senior advisor to the NASA Administrator, speaking at this past weekend's Apollo/Saturn reunion at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, said that it is both the current administration's and (assuming he is confirmed) Charlie Bolden's plan to fully utilize the space station. In fact, he spoke strongly against those who work for NASA who have criticized the ISS, reminding them that the American public has paid for its launch -- its now time to take full use of that investment.

issman1
Member

Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 07-28-2009 09:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree this is probably a nudge to the Augustine Commission to extend not just ISS operations (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but also to extend Shuttle flights beyond 2010. The latter would be a major mistake, in my humble view. Additional flights increase the likelihood of another accident. I pray it doesn't happen, but is it worth risking astronauts lives for national prestige? The decision to retire the Space Shuttle was the only policy decision George W Bush ever got right. Perhaps it's finally time to invite China into the ISS programme? Having Shenzhou alongside Soyuz would surely be beneficial.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 07-28-2009 11:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
The decision to retire the Space Shuttle was the only policy decision George W Bush ever got right.
Not hardly. If you'd like a political discussion this is not the place.

I'd suggest keeping politics out of it and remove that line as it has nothing to do with the topic.

Personally, I am for ending the Shuttle asap and the ISS was a mistake to begin let alone continue.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-28-2009 12:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Chairman Norm Augustine, addressing Chief Astronaut Steve Lindsey at today's hearing of the U.S. Human Space Flight Review Committee, asked about the usefulness of the space station as it applies to spaceflight beyond Earth orbit.
Augustine: Is ISS of any value to the astronauts if indeed it is not of value to the science community? I overstated that for the point of the question.

Lindsey: Space station right now is a fantastic vehicle that is primarily operated by the ground. Any vehicle that we build to go interplanetary has to be autonomous in nature. Those are the lessons we need to learn. So, for example with ISS, one of the things we could do with ISS that we ought to learn how to operate that spacecraft autonomously. And I have heard this suggested before, so its certainly not my idea, but build a 20 minute delay into the communications of the ISS and go practice working autonomously.

There are a number of things we can learn [from] ISS. Right now we are learning extensive lessons on ISS for any type of future exploration. We are fixing systems that we never thought we could fix, we are learning right now with six person crew how we do provisioning, how a crew handles obviously long duration missions together and all the issues that go with that. From an international perspective, we're learning an incredible amount. So we are already learning so much today for interplanetary [missions] that it is really hard for me to measure but I could talk to you all day the lessons we are already learning.

I think there are many things we can look at in the future for ISS. There [is] potential, again, this radiation thing*, we can answer that on ISS and I think that's important. So I think ISS can be utilized for long duration preparations and for long duration missions.

*Lindsey earlier addressed a question about the risks posed to astronauts being subjected to cosmic ray radiation.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-28-2009 03:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sally Ride, serving as the lead of the shuttle/ISS subcommittee of the U.S. Human Space Flight Review Committee, today called for the "renewal" of the International Space Station, extending its use until at least 2020.

The point was raised, which Ride nodded in agreement to, that the U.S. doesn't seem to be able to allocate the resources to both operate a world class, leading space program while also developing the next step in a world class, leading space program.

"If I had to make that trade today, I would really have trouble choosing exploration over the space station," Ride said, quickly adding that she hoped both could be supported moving forward.

ejectr
Member

Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 07-28-2009 04:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ejectr   Click Here to Email ejectr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What they need to do is comprise a crew made up of an American, a Russian, a Chinese, an Iranian and an Isreali.

Maybe if they show the world they can all live together in space, we can all live together on earth.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 07-28-2009 05:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"If I had to make that trade today, I would really have trouble choosing exploration over the space station," Ride said, quickly adding that she hoped both could be supported moving forward.
I choose exploring. Leave the stuck in low orbit station to those who are unable to go any farther or do anything else.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-28-2009 06:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Leave the stuck in low earth orbit station to those who are unable to go any farther or do anything else.
In other words: "been there, done that", which is more or less the same argument that Aldrin puts forth when arguing why we shouldn't return to the Moon and just push directly onto to Mars.

Or for that matter, why von Braun advocated in 1970 to cancel Apollos 15 through 17 (let alone 18, 19, and 20) in favor of pushing out to Mars.

In some ways, it was why Apollo was canceled and the space shuttle came into being.

It seems some want a space program of fits and starts while others want sustained growth.

ejectr
Member

Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 07-28-2009 08:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ejectr   Click Here to Email ejectr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What if we had built the ISS in orbit around the moon and went round and round that? Would the ISS be more significant circling that vacuum?

It doesn't matter where space travel takes place. Exploration of the unknown has more than one definition.

When we do head for Mars, we'll be darn happy we learned the things we need to get there on the ISS circling the earth.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement