Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#2Great!
> • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028.
So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#3Great! > • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028. So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?
Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#4Great! > • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028. So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?
Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
The problem with the International Space Station (ISS) is the ISS. It was an exercise in 80s and 90s design, and you could launch an equally capable science platform at a lower cost than refurbishing the current station.
One of the main reasons why NASA is reluctant to replace the existing station is that they are afraid that the program would get cancelled, and they will be left with no station.
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#5Great! > • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028. So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?
Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
My worry here is that if ISS gets shut down completely without another station being already at least partially in orbit, there won't be enough political will to start another project like that.
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#6Oh please. Sure, they'll authorize money for some big things right now, then in a year or two they'll change their minds (after new people are elected) and pull the plug on it. They've done it over and over.
The only way the US can get anything done in space exploration is if it can be fully funded and completed in less than 2 years. So a little probe here and there is completely doable, but a Space Shuttle replacement or manned Mars mission or any other big project is a complete no-go. It won't ever happen.
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
The problem with the International Space Station (ISS) is the ISS. It was an exercise in 80s and 90s design, and you could launch an equally capable science platform at a lower cost than refurbishing the current station. One of the main reasons why NASA is reluctant to replace the existing station is that they are afraid that the program would get cancelled, and they will be left with no station.
Also the I part of ISS kept the world space research orbiting around NASA. For example Brazil make every single research that requires a station (including vehicles, modules and medical science) use the ISS.
Without the ISS Brazil could for example attempt its own station, or help China instead.
NASA is very powerful, but if everyone help China or Russia instead, it would be bad for USA strategically.
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#8The worst part of this news is the continuation of the Space Launch System (SLS), which has cost over seven billion dollars (not including Ares development costs), and is expected to end up costing forty-one billion by 2025, by which time they expect to complete a total of four launches (destination: nowhere important, and probably late).
Vulcan (from ULA), New Glenn (from Blue Origin), and Falcon Heavy (from SpaceX) are all better platforms for space exploration, which could enable science (such as the Europa mission) and travel (to Mars), and cost far less than SLS (in development and $/kg to orbit). NASA should be spending money on missions, not rocket development.
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#9Oh please. Sure, they'll authorize money for some big things right now, then in a year or two they'll change their minds (after new people are elected) and pull the plug on it. They've done it over and over. The only way the US can get anything done in space exploration is if it can be fully funded and completed in less than 2 years. So a little probe here and there is completely doable, but a Space Shuttle replaceme…
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. Congressional waffling, presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy, etc. have all done this many times.
Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
Re: Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
My worry here is that if ISS gets shut down completely without another station being already at least partially in orbit, there won't be enough political will to start another project like that.
Historically, that's probably the most likely outcome. NASA has always faced tough political battles for funding all the way back to the middle of the Apollo program and nowhere has that been more apparent than when NASA was trying to replace one major project with another. If you're interested, John Logsdon's After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program is a fascinating--albeit depressing--book on the politics of NASA funding. It mainly focuses on Apollo and the transition to STS (and covers some of the alternative paths people at NASA wanted to pursue), but I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the same challenges will plague any ISS replacement, whatever it may be.