Is there no need to do experiments in space or have that thing where people can go into space. If they spend so much time building it why just trash it for essentially nothing?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
-
1$\begingroup$ It is probably useful to link the relevant announcement, since there have been several plans for end of ISS, for many different reasons en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…. This week (march 2022) suspect Ukraine related sabre rattling would be the reason, so more of the I part and less of the SS being the problem. $\endgroup$– GremlinWrangerMar 19, 2022 at 6:06
-
$\begingroup$ @GremlinWranger The 2030-ish date for decommissioning predates the Ukraine war, though not necessarily any crisis. However, poor diplomatic relations with Russia have been a problem for the ISS since at least 2016 and/or Russia has not always been interested in sustaining the station beyond that year. $\endgroup$– ikraseMar 19, 2022 at 6:22
-
1$\begingroup$ Maintaining and operating the International Space Station comes at a significant cost, about three billion dollars a year to the US alone. (Other countries do add to the significant costs needed to maintain and operate the ISS.) This is about a third of NASA's human space exploration budget. The ISS is an albatross hanging around NASA's neck. NASA has another equally expensive (or even more expensive) albatross that has been draped across its neck by the US congress, the Space Launch System. The combination of those two albatrosses is unsustainable. $\endgroup$– David HammenMar 19, 2022 at 14:17
-
$\begingroup$ 3b a year is still chump change compared to building the iss NASA should let another country like china take over to reduce waste $\endgroup$– LightsoutMar 20, 2022 at 1:47
-
2$\begingroup$ I did not downvote, but I suspect you are getting downvotes for "Is there no need to do experiments in space or have that thing where people can go into space." The ISS most likely will not be the only option eight years from now, which is the currently planned decommissioning time. Things don't last forever in space. Space is a rather hostile environment. Moreover, old stuff like the ISS use ancient computers that are slower than your first cellphone's computer and uses programing languages that are nearly dead. $\endgroup$– David HammenMar 20, 2022 at 18:53
|
Show 1 more comment
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
It should probably be noted that it's by no means guaranteed that the ISS will actually be decommissioned at the currently planned date, which is nearly a decade away. The life of the ISS has already been extended before, and NASA projects have a history of running longer than planned as long as funding is made available.
First, the ISS is getting to be pretty old. The oldest parts of it are now over 23 years old, and it was originally designed for a 15 year lifespan. Equipment gets old and wears out. The flimsy construction of space hardware (which is inevitable due to the tyranny of the rocket equation and the extreme cost of launching hardware on chemical-fueled expendable rockets) means that ordinary vibrations also wear on the structure. (vibrations are a serious problem in space.) While a lot of hardware on the ISS has been refurbished, not everything can, and wholesale replacement of modules would both be a daunting task (especially without access to the Space Shuttle) and would cost money that might be better spent on a brand-new space station.
Second, the ISS costs a considerable amount of money/resources to operate, and this money can be spent elsewhere. Over the last several years, there has been a movement towards renewed interest in further exploration, including a return to the moon, development of infrastructure such as the "lunar gateway" space station, and eventual crewed missions to Mars. However, without vastly increased funding (and it should be understood that, barring a great shift in public opinion or a desperate need, the unlimited-budget days of Apollo are never coming back), the ISS competes against other projects in space.
Third, while the ISS is useful, not everyone agrees that it is worth the cost it takes to keep running it. It is in Low Earth Orbit, and while gaining experience in long-term crewed space habitats has been very valuable, as have numerous other experiments, there is only so much that can be done in (only) LEO with the facilities that the ISS currently or conceivably can contain. This is a point of some controversy. To some degree, the ISS is a vestige of the Shuttle program and the days when NASA lost focus on any crewed exploration outside of LEO. An additional problem is that astronauts' time is so occupied with maintenance (which will only increase as the hardware gets older) that they have less time for science work.
Fourth, the maintenance / future refurbishment of the ISS is somewhat dependent on international cooperation, critically including Russia (which produced one of the base modules that contains some of the critical spacecraft systems). Recent events may be bringing this cooperation to a difficult place.
-
$\begingroup$ Related to the high maintenance is the fact that the ISS is one of the first space stations ever constructed. Before it was Mir and a few monolithic single-launch stations. Not only is it old, it was highly experimental. $\endgroup$ Mar 25, 2022 at 14:31
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
The accepted answer (which is good) has not explicitly said this, so I will say it in an extended comment: The ISS has to be decommissioned while its electrical power, computers, avionics, and propulsion systems are still functional.
There are at solid reasons for needing to doing so. Doing so is part of an international agreement regarding vehicles in low Earth orbit that borders on being a treaty. Another reason is that the reentry of NASA's Skylab rained debris on the Australian outback. NASA was fined for littering. This could have been much worse, and could be even worse with the ISS. There are parts on the ISS that are much denser and much more massive than Skylab's parts that survived reentry.
Parts of the ISS will survive reentry, so it's best to insure that its reentry will be harmless by making sure it hits the most remote part of the Pacific Ocean rather than risking that it might hit land.
answered Mar 22, 2022 at 19:45
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
This was answered directly in the FAQ: The International Space Station 2022 Transition Plan on Feb 11, 2022. (excerpt below:)
Why is NASA planning for the end of the International Space Station?
The International Space Station has maintained a continuous human presence aboard the microgravity laboratory for more than 21 years with assembly missions starting in 1998. Throughout the years, NASA and its international partners have worked together to operate, maintain, and upgrade parts of station. The technical lifetime of the station is limited by the primary structure, which includes the modules, radiators, and truss structures. The lifetime of the primary structure is affected by dynamic loading (such as spacecraft dockings/undockings) and orbital thermal cycling. NASA has committed to fully use and safely operate the space station through 2030, as the agency also works to enable and seamlessly transition to commercial owned and operated platforms in low-Earth orbit.
This will allow NASA to buy the services it needs from commercial companies for microgravity research and technology demonstrations while the agency explores the Moon and Mars.
There is a lot of other good info in that FAQ that is potentially relevant to your question too like: What comes after the International Space Station? and Why doesn’t NASA plan to repurpose part of the space station for future commercial use or educational purposes such as displaying its modules or parts in a museum?
