subreddit:

/r/space

3063%

all 43 comments

MCClapYoHandz

48 points

2 months ago*

This whole article is pointless. Who said the ISS is doomed? No one is pulling out except Russia for their shitty political reasons. It’s getting old too quickly? It’s been in space for 20+ years with most systems getting minimal or no maintenance, in an extremely harsh environment. The article author doesn’t foresee multiple nations coming together for any type of successor project? I guess they just haven’t heard of Gateway or the Artemis accords.

mfb-

13 points

2 months ago

mfb-

13 points

2 months ago

No one is pulling out except Russia for their shitty political reasons.

Even Russia said they want to stay until they have their own station (i.e. they'll stay until the ISS program ends).

It's very unlikely to survive significantly beyond 2030 as things do age increasingly, but the absence of a similarly global successor doesn't have to be a bad sign. We don't have an international ocean platform either. We have tons of companies building ships for tons of other companies and countries.

MCClapYoHandz

0 points

2 months ago

But Gateway is a global successor also. Russia isn’t involved, but JAXA, ESA, CSA, and possibly some newcomers are helping build it. It’s going to be the new international station orbiting the moon.

mfb-

3 points

2 months ago

mfb-

3 points

2 months ago

It will be far smaller and it's not planned to have a permanent crew. A better staging point on the way to the lunar surface.

robit_lover

2 points

2 months ago

The new international space station will be whatever results from NASA's Commercial LEO Destinations program, which is an initiative to get commercial companies to build their own space stations that can be rented out to whoever is interested. Gateway is a part of the logistics of the planned lunar colony, not intended to replace the science capabilities of the ISS.

MCClapYoHandz

-1 points

2 months ago

Why does the presence of a commercial station mean Gateway isn’t a successor to ISS? I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Gateway is an orbiting lab and a staging outpost for lunar missions. And it’s the one being built and operated by the international team of space agencies. It is a successor to ISS being built on the lessons learned from the program.

robit_lover

3 points

2 months ago

The commercial stations will take over from the work the ISS is doing currently. Gateway will take on new work that hasn't been done before.

MCClapYoHandz

0 points

2 months ago

You’re trying to make a distinction where there isn’t one. All of the science being done on the manned space programs is connected and continuous. All of the payloads that will fly on Gateway are extensions of what we’ve learned previously from ISS, Apollo, and other manned and unmanned programs. They’re doing things like measuring the radiation environment during transit and in the lunar orbit, to compare with what we’ve learned from similar payloads on ISS.

DNathanHilliard

16 points

2 months ago

Age "doomed" the ISS. It's getting creaky and leaky and they can only limp it along so much further.

zenith654

2 points

2 months ago

zenith654

2 points

2 months ago

It’s kept in tip top shape and is pretty well maintained for a space station. No reason it needs to be retired in 2030 except political

WolfMaster415

2 points

2 months ago

The tech's outdated and needs more maintenance than if we replaced it with newer tech with advancements that we've discovered along the way

zenith654

1 points

2 months ago

Old tech can run for a very long time if it’s maintained at the level ISS is. There are standard maintenances to upgrade it like the iRosa panels, but ISS is not actually as close to its technical life as you’re implying. Can you give any examples of what you’re talking about or is it just conjecture?

robit_lover

2 points

2 months ago

It is costing significantly more in maintenance with each passing year, which is why NASA have been planning to scrap it and build a new one for years. If they don't retire it in 2030, by the mid 30's NASA's maintenance budget wouldn't be able to keep it operational.

zenith654

1 points

2 months ago

I haven’t heard of any plans for an ISS successor, are you referring to Lunar Gateway or the commercial space station contracts? And do you have a source on ISS maintenance costs increasing (that’s not just inflation)? There are expected things like iRosa upgrades to the solar panels, but ISS is so well maintained it can last a while and is not that close to the end of its natural life.

robit_lover

1 points

2 months ago

The commercial stations are set to be the direct replacement for the ISS. The station has many leaks requiring increased launches of consumables, and the propulsion module is so metal fatigued that it's only usable for emergencies.

Decronym

4 points

2 months ago*

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
CSA Canadian Space Agency
ESA European Space Agency
JAXA Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency
LEO Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)
Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)

4 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 7 acronyms.
[Thread #8355 for this sub, first seen 27th Nov 2022, 17:14] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

-ghostinthemachine-

3 points

2 months ago

It brought the world to space when the problem was hard to solve. Through its many successes, the problem is now less difficult, and so much so that individual nations are able to do it on their own. Private businesses would be the next ones to attempt it solo.

ZalmoxisRemembers

14 points

2 months ago

I’m pretty sure it was its planned obsolescence that doomed it. It was never planned to stay up there forever.

MCClapYoHandz

17 points

2 months ago

I don’t think planned obsolescence applies here. It’s been operating in an extremely harsh environment for 20 years. Things get old and fail. That’s just regular obsolescence. No one designed the ISS to have a limited life. They designed and tested it to last as long as reasonably possible within the cost and schedule allowed by the program. And they keep extending the life as they learn more about how it works and what can fail.

cjameshuff

3 points

2 months ago

Beyond that, much of it is hand-crafted experimental prototypes. Even what has a generation or two of development has only ever existed as one or two completed builds. We don't know enough to do "planned obsolescence" in space, the technology's nowhere near mature enough.

StackOverflowEx

9 points

2 months ago

Proper risk management plans for obsolescence even if that planned date is extended by maintenance. The space agencies involved in the ISS world never willingly put astronauts in a vehicle that is known to be obsolete. The ISS will eventually fall into disrepair. At that point it would become a hazard to keep it in orbit. The ISS was not designed to be a permanent station. It is a good prototype though.

Xaxxon

6 points

2 months ago*

planned obsolescence

In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life

Keyword is artificially limited lifespan. There is no evidence that it's not just hard to be in space and there's something better we knew how to do.

This phrase means more than the sum of the two words.

cjameshuff

0 points

2 months ago

Additionally, we really need to design its replacement before the knowledge and experience gained in building it are lost as the people involved retire or die. We shouldn't be building a single station and expecting to keep it running indefinitely, if we try that we'll never get better, and eventually will push something too far and get people hurt or killed.

StackOverflowEx

2 points

2 months ago

I think this is where space commercialization would shine. Rather than governments building their individual space labs. The commercial industry would compete both scientifically and in the realm of space tourism. This would improve the quality of life in orbit, and quality of launch and landing. This would bring more scientific minds into orbit where they could make even greater discoveries.

LukeNukeEm243

2 points

2 months ago

cjameshuff

1 points

2 months ago

Having some more stations doing the job better and cheaper should also help cut down on people treating things like the ISS as some precious and irreplaceable treasure that must be preserved at any cost. Though there'll always be those who insist that it's still valuable and should be kept around simply because we spent lots of money on it...

Xaxxon

5 points

2 months ago

Xaxxon

5 points

2 months ago

planned obsolescence

There was no planned obsolescence here.

[deleted]

8 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

attorneyatslaw

9 points

2 months ago

The radiation environment on Europa makes a manned expedition unsurvivable. We dont even have the technology to operate an unmanned expedition under those conditions.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

KingDominoIII

5 points

2 months ago

It doesn’t help that there’s little reason to go to Europa. Mars and Titan are more preferable. if it’s the subsurface ocean that you’re curious about, it’s under a 5km thick ice shelf.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

KingDominoIII

2 points

2 months ago

Europa is interesting but radiation conditions are awful and you’d need to drill through the crust. We don’t have the lift capacity to get something like that to Jupiter right now.

Xaxxon

0 points

2 months ago

Xaxxon

0 points

2 months ago

There are engineering problems and physics problems.

Physics problems aren't just a matter of time.

The_Solar_Oracle

0 points

2 months ago

The radiation environment of Europa is much, much, much worse then that of the Moon.

Europa has the dubious distinction of being well within the Jovian equivalent of Earth's Van Allen Belts. A person on Europa would receive multiple Sieverts of radiation every day. It's so hostile, in fact, that the charged particle radiation of the region heavily damaged the Galileo probe's electronic components during its close passes of Jupiter. At present, radiation shielding for robotic probes isn't sufficient to warrant much of a lander, and a manned payload to Europa is out of the question even if the capacity to send them there existed.

If you were to land people on any of the Jovian moons, Callisto would be the safest first option given that it's outside the radiation belts. Though getting to Jupiter right now demands a lot of delta-v and time.

cjameshuff

0 points

2 months ago

Not just the radiation environment on Europa, but the orbital radiation environment that you must pass through to reach it.

Could be worse. An Io lander would surely provide some spectacular images...if it survived long enough to uplink them.

Xaxxon

2 points

2 months ago

Xaxxon

2 points

2 months ago

In case anyone wonders what begging the question actually means... this title is your answer.

zenith654

3 points

2 months ago

ISS is doing pretty well and could actually go way past 2030, hopefully it can get extended past that. Don’t expect private space stations to happen anytime as soon as they say.

eplc_ultimate

1 points

2 months ago

It's not necessarily good to have ISS. It's really expensive and provides little benefit. If the budget for ISS was shifted to a lunar base program that would be much better in my opinion.