International Space Station to be decommissioned in 2020?

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Some thoughts regarding space stations and manned missions to Moon and Mars:

While early concepts had seen the primary purpose for space stations to serve as a gateway to the Moon and other planets, this has never actually materialized in practice. No space station ever built (Skylab, Salyut 1 through 7, Mir, ISS) had a interplanetary gateway function. They were space laboratories in low earth orbit.

On the other hand, the Apollo moon landings were achieved without having any space station to serve as a "gateway". A manned Mars mission could (and probably will) be conducted without any direct involvement of a space station too. So the presumed connection between space stations and manned missions beyond LEO by von Braun and the likes simply didn't hold water in reality.

That being said, there are two possible applications of ISS program experience for future "deep space" missions. First of all, a manned Mars ship will probably be put together in Earth orbit and "launched" from there. Through building the ISS we know how something like this is done exactly. Second, the ISS helps in gaining experience with long-term space habitation and what effects it has on the human body and mind (although Mir had already served in that function as well).

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Billions of dollar just to do research that could have been done by a space shuttle.

Space Shuttle missions are limited to two weeks. Scientific experiments on the ISS can be conducted for months or even indefinitely. You can't really do anything long-term with the Shuttle. Not to mention that it had only one laboratory module (Spacelab) and the ISS has several.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I don't see how this gateway to Mars or the Moon could be useful. In the current situation, this will always increase the price. A space dock could only be useful in two cases:
1. If you're building a big spacecraft which can't be lifted in one piece.
2. You're launching to and from that space dock multiple times, without going back to the Earth.
3. You're building in space from materials taken from asteroids.

Arguably, you can build the bigger spacecraft without help from the station – a station as we can build it now doesn't provide that much help, and nobody is launching interplanetary spaceships on regular basis.

What am I missing?

 

[sojourner]

It does in the context of your argument that the ISS was intended to be used as a stepping stone and crucial part of a mars mission.

The intent was already proven through NASA's projections of future ventures.

Then post a link to that. not some third party's dream of what the ISS should be used for.

So, then it is contributing to mars research? that goes against your argument then.

No it's in favor of your argument that research apparently worthy of loose spending practices. But it does confirm that this has not happened yet and EVEN THIS GOAL for Mars research hasn't occurred and was INTENDED. GOAL not achieved.

The arguement has always been the same.
NASA is not getting the job done.

Yeah, I think if I remember, we were going on this comment:

It is. The project just became a waste of tax payer dollars if the station doesn't accomplish it's goal. To have to construct another one to properly and effectively set up bases on the moon and Mars is exactly the kind of pork-barrel spending that was mentioned that killed NASA in the first place.

And the goal in that second link hasn't happened yet. You're right. But then again, it was just a proposal. Not INTENDED. GOAL not achieve because, derrrr, GOAL NOT ASSIGNED. Yep, I can capitalize words too.

That was not my intent. I was merely setting the definition for the sake of accuracy as is my practice.

Note, the following "dots" follow the "NASA is a joke" argument and share no context with th ISS's missionThe above "dot" relates to the entire aerospace industry and is not indicative of NASA spending.Only one?? Really? You have a poor memory.

Reitteration: The Argument (or more properly: The CLAIM is that NASA represents a meandering, financially, superflous organization that has done little or nothing at excessive cost for the last 40 years.

The ISS Mission:
As a product of NASA's excess spending the de-orbiting of the station would represent a massive loss to tax payers. It's has been and will be thoroughly criticized for it's high cost in assembly and maintenance and then of course having to eventually build another later.

NASA is not the sole owner of the station and does not make the decisions on the future of the station on it's own.

4th "DOT" as it were:
NASA has shared joint research on all of these projects. The aerospace firms shared a partnership in the research in order to shoulder the financial burden. NONE of those projects to progress space travel or stream line space travel have come to practical application in 40 years. One miles stone... Scrutiny is inevitable.

Name "these projects" that #4 is referring to for cost figures. Because as stated you are insinuating that NASA has it's finger in every dollar spent in aerospace. ooo! Sounds like a conspiracy!

 

[Saquist]

Some thoughts regarding space stations and manned missions to Moon and Mars:

While early concepts had seen the primary purpose for space stations to serve as a gateway to the Moon and other planets, this has never actually materialized in practice. No space station ever built (Skylab, Salyut 1 through 7, Mir, ISS) had a interplanetary gateway function. They were space laboratories in low earth orbit.

On the other hand, the Apollo moon landings were achieved without having any space station to serve as a "gateway". A manned Mars mission could (and probably will) be conducted without any direct involvement of a space station too. So the presumed connection between space stations and manned missions beyond LEO by von Braun and the likes simply didn't hold water in reality.

That being said, there are two possible applications of ISS program experience for future "deep space" missions. First of all, a manned Mars ship will probably be put together in Earth orbit and "launched" from there. Through building the ISS we know how something like this is done exactly. Second, the ISS helps in gaining experience with long-term space habitation and what effects it has on the human body and mind (although Mir had already served in that function as well).

Experience is always great but it's not effectively cost productive to gain it at this sort of budget and then throw it away. That's ludicrous. I will always have a problem with throwing away money like this to the space program to get squat done when there are veterans not getting proper treatment, schools closing and infrastructure crumbling across the nation. Zero progress is never going to justify such neglect.

Space Shuttle missions are limited to two weeks. Scientific experiments on the ISS can be conducted for months or even indefinitely. You can't really do anything long-term with the Shuttle. Not to mention that it had only one laboratory module (Spacelab) and the ISS has several.

The shuttle could easily be augmented to the task.
Very few of the stations research was so long term (from what I understand)

The intent was already proven through NASA's projections of future ventures.

Then post a link to that. not some third party's dream of what the ISS should be used for.

Sorry. Not everything is on the web. The Book is named (I believe) Outbound.
Those images came from NASA artist and engineer ideas of what the station would be WHICH is why they are so similar to what the station is now.

Yeah, I think if I remember, we were going on this comment: And the goal in that second link hasn't happened yet. You're right. But then again, it was just a proposal. Not INTENDED. GOAL not achieve because, derrrr, GOAL NOT ASSIGNED. Yep, I can capitalize words too.

You don't get it, do you.
You're arguing semantics. You're trying to win a debate. If that's what you want, then I'll hand you the victory ...right now. You win. But untill you understand...that de orbiting that station after all the cost, man power, know how and time just to have to build another one later on...for the Mars Lunar missions is a colosal waste and in terms of progressing man space travel ...that's failure. Nothing accomplished.

Did they learn something from the effort? Of course
Was the research beneficial, Maybe.
Was it practical: No

NASA is not the sole owner of the station and does not make the decisions on the future of the station on it's own.

...aye que malo (WHOOOSH)

Name "these projects" that #4 is referring to for cost figures. Because as stated you are insinuating that NASA has it's finger in every dollar spent in aerospace. ooo! Sounds like a conspiracy!

Conspiracy? No.
Stupidity? Yes.
I listed those projects above. The one that disturbed me most was the Delta Clipper/X-33 competition that was going on. It seemed so ridiculous...I really have no words for what I've read on this subject.

 

[Deckerd]

I can't believe you really have no words. I can't.

 

[sojourner]

The station as built is a destination, not a way station. No part of it was built with the goal of getting to mars in mind. Hell, even it's orbit isn't conducive to BEO missions.