So What Should We Do With the ISS?

[tfrielin]

Sorry, but I haven't been following this important thread and I see it now exceeds 100 pages.

But I'd like to ask---What do the forum members here think about NASA and ESA astronauts continuing to co-habit with Russian on the International Space Station?

Should we bring our guys home as a rebuke to Russia?
Is it morally defensible to keep doing business up there when Russia is slaughtering innocent Ukrainians?
Or just keep going on because the ISS is so expensive and there's no replacement in sight?

I have my opinion, but would like to learn what people here think. And, if there's anything like consensus?

Just curious... Thanks.

 

[CalebJ]

I see it as an opportunity to let the scientific community work outside the confines of politics and focus on pushing forward with human exploration.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Sorry, but I haven't been following this important thread and I see it now exceeds 100 pages.

But I'd like to ask---What do the forum members here think about NASA and ESA astronauts continuing to co-habit with Russian on the International Space Station?

Should we bring our guys home as a rebuke to Russia?
Is it morally defensible to keep doing business up there when Russia is slaughtering innocent Ukrainians?
Or just keep going on because the ISS is so expensive and there's no replacement in sight?

I have my opinion, but would like to learn what people here think. And, if there's anything like consensus?

Just curious... Thanks.

Personally, I think keeping them working together will be useful towards restoring relations at some point in time. It may also be useful in revealing to the Russians what Putin and their military are doing. The truth should be evident to the cosmonauts.

 

[Peartree]

I see it as an opportunity to let the scientific community work outside the confines of politics and focus on pushing forward with human exploration.

Agreed. Science has always tried to be "above the fray." Scientists often lobbied for exemptions to government bans so that scientists from politically unpopular countries (think Cold War) could attend, or present papers at, international conferences.

 

[tfrielin]

Personally, I think keeping them working together will be useful towards restoring relations at some point in time. It may also be useful in revealing to the Russians what Putin and their military are doing. The truth should be evident to the cosmonauts.

Maybe I'm more cynical than others, but I see Russia's invasion as evidence that the original reason for cooperating on ISS is a failure.

International cooperation---especially with Russia---was supposed to bring nations together and promote peace and understanding.

I think that aim has failed here as Putin's war indicates, so end our cooperation.

As I say, maybe I'm just a cynic. But I don't see us sitting in a circle singing Kumabyah is bringing peace.

 

[boatgeek]

Sorry, but I haven't been following this important thread and I see it now exceeds 100 pages.

But I'd like to ask---What do the forum members here think about NASA and ESA astronauts continuing to co-habit with Russian on the International Space Station?

Should we bring our guys home as a rebuke to Russia?
Is it morally defensible to keep doing business up there when Russia is slaughtering innocent Ukrainians?
Or just keep going on because the ISS is so expensive and there's no replacement in sight?

I have my opinion, but would like to learn what people here think. And, if there's anything like consensus?

Just curious... Thanks.

Maybe I'm more cynical than others, but I see Russia's invasion as evidence that the original reason for cooperating on ISS is a failure.

International cooperation---especially with Russia---was supposed to bring nations together and promote peace and understanding.

I think that aim has failed here as Putin's war indicates, so end our cooperation.

As I say, maybe I'm just a cynic. But I don't see us sitting in a circle singing Kumabyah is bringing peace.

In many ways, I'm a cynic too, though I try to be a cynical optimist. If we left the ISS as a "rebuke to Russia" we'd be handing them the 3/4 of the station that we built. That would be seen as a retreat and a public relations win by Russia. The optimist side of me says that there's symbolic value in continuing to work together. But the cynic definitely doesn't want to give them the opportunity to lock the hatches behind us.

 

[tfrielin]

In many ways, I'm a cynic too, though I try to be a cynical optimist. If we left the ISS as a "rebuke to Russia" we'd be handing them the 3/4 of the station that we built. That would be seen as a retreat and a public relations win by Russia. The optimist side of me says that there's symbolic value in continuing to work together. But the cynic definitely doesn't want to give them the opportunity to lock the hatches behind us.

Thanks for your thoughts, boatgeek.

Several points (and this is coming from a long-time observer and supporter of our space program and as the author of several dozen published articles, commentaries, reviews, and conference papers spanning forty years):

1) The ISS has been up there over twenty years and has yet to produce any Nobel Prize-class research. The last use of it is to collect human factors data by keeping a crew of men and women up there for long enough to simulate around trip to Mars. I don't know why they're not doing that before ISS end-of-life.

2) Russia has already publicly stated they're leaving year after next. So let them go.

3) We relied on them for ten years to get our guys up there and back after Shuttle. Nobody seemed to care that we let ourselves in such a humiliating position. So, leaving now would not produce a whimper of public sentiment either.

4) As I understand it, the US side provides most of the electricity for all the Station; Russia provides re-boost with the Progress vehicles. Musk has already said a Dragon capsule could do re-boost. So, we don't need Russia for that. But they need our electricity.

5) If NASA has any future in manned spaceflight at all, it is in the Artemis Program. Retire from the ISS, and get going full steam on Artemis, before someone in Congress thinks we should cancel it. And leave before the aging hardware breaks down in a possibly catastrophic way.

So, yes---still a cynic. Although I prefer to think I'm just a realist.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

The ISS is a tricky question. The Russians “own” certain sections, while we and other partners “own” the rest. I’m not sure they can be easily disassembled or it the remaining sections could even function separate from the Russian parts. So this would be a messy divorce. I’m not really sure what the best thing to do is.

One other original rationale for ISS was that it would give Russian scientists something constructive to work on after the fall of the Soviet Union. It was feared that the former Soviet space program would collapse, and the scientists would seek employment working on missile technology for rival countries. I’m not sure if that‘s still a concern, but I’m pretty sure the Russian space program would collapse without ISS.

I wonder if this issue is a side topic that deserves its own thread.

 

[georgegassaway]

I wonder if this issue is a side topic that deserves its own thread.

Indeed it ought to be split off. I can see this going for PAGES in this thread.

And for that reason , I'm not going to post here my thoughts regarding that off- topic topic.

 

[Antares JS]

I’m not sure they can be easily disassembled or it the remaining sections could even function separate from the Russian parts.

It can't be easily disassembled - it wasn't meant to be. It would involve opening access hatches that were designed to shut permanently once modules were connected and disconnecting cables that were built to be permanently connected. As for functioning, I'm less sure about that, but it seems likely that an engineering solution exists to allow the ISS to function without the Russian segment. A more likely scenario has NASA astronauts being trained to operate the Russian segment or replacing their functionality with something else per Elon Musk's suggestion.

 

[Peartree]

I moved this conversation to its own thread as some of you had discussed.

 

[rharshberger]

If we want to continue working with the ISS after Russia departs, and our other partners agree, why not boost it into a stable orbit (geosynchronous or other) and continue to do research outside of low earth orbit. Probably a lot less expensive to maintain a somewhat stable orbit than one that requires frequent modification.

 

[CalebJ]

Question from the uneducated peanut gallery... Wouldn't that make it significantly more energy intense to make supply and crew runs?

 

[boomtube-mk2]

Question from the uneducated peanut gallery... Wouldn't that make it significantly more energy intense to make supply and crew runs?

Yes, in fact, I'm not sure we, or our allies, even have the capacity to put a manned vehicle into a geosynchronous orbit.

 

[boatgeek]

I wasn't going to reply earlier to avoid thread drift, but since it has it's own thread...

Thanks for your thoughts, boatgeek.

Several points (and this is coming from a long-time observer and supporter of our space program and as the author of several dozen published articles, commentaries, reviews, and conference papers spanning forty years):

1) The ISS has been up there over twenty years and has yet to produce any Nobel Prize-class research. The last use of it is to collect human factors data by keeping a crew of men and women up there for long enough to simulate around trip to Mars. I don't know why they're not doing that before ISS end-of-life.

2) Russia has already publicly stated they're leaving year after next. So let them go.

3) We relied on them for ten years to get our guys up there and back after Shuttle. Nobody seemed to care that we let ourselves in such a humiliating position. So, leaving now would not produce a whimper of public sentiment either.

4) As I understand it, the US side provides most of the electricity for all the Station; Russia provides re-boost with the Progress vehicles. Musk has already said a Dragon capsule could do re-boost. So, we don't need Russia for that. But they need our electricity.

5) If NASA has any future in manned spaceflight at all, it is in the Artemis Program. Retire from the ISS, and get going full steam on Artemis, before someone in Congress thinks we should cancel it. And leave before the aging hardware breaks down in a possibly catastrophic way.

So, yes---still a cynic. Although I prefer to think I'm just a realist.

Putting my cynical realist hat on, Russia needs to be part of the ISS more than we do. As mentioned above, we have lots of other space stuff going on. Russia really doesn't, particularly as sanctions are kicking in. Prestige-wise, they can claim to be an equal partner on ISS (though that's probably not actually true), but they would be a junior partner at best on the Chinese station and they have no real prospect of creating their own station. Also, the reboost can be done by NASA-based assets (Cygnus now and probably Dragon?), and the ISS is due to be retired in the not-too-distant future anyway.

If we want to continue working with the ISS after Russia departs, and our other partners agree, why not boost it into a stable orbit (geosynchronous or other) and continue to do research outside of low earth orbit. Probably a lot less expensive to maintain a somewhat stable orbit than one that requires frequent modification.

Issues for crew transportation noted above. Those go away when Starship becomes a reality, but the space landscape will change so dramatically at that point that we would probably want to rethink the whole concept anyway. Also, would geostationary orbit be outside the protection of the Van Allen belts?

 

[tfrielin]

Good discussion.

To address some of the above points:

Despite Russian blustering from time to time, I don't think it's feasible for them to just close their hatches and fly off to join up with China and its embryonic Space Station. Or just go it alone. Those through-the-hatch cables---some designed, some ad hoc over the years--feed data and electricity to other parts of the ISS. Removing them will be problematical.

Plus, I don't know the orbital mechanics involved, but a detached Russian Rump Station may not even be able to link up with China---what's the orbital inclination of each?

Boosting whatever portion of ISS to geosynchronous orbit also would take an enormous amount of delta v. It takes as much energy to get from LEO to GEO as it does to send the same payload to the moon. So, such a boost would require several Saturn S-IVB sized stages to get the job done. No such stage exists today. At any rate, a Dragon, as per Musk, can do the re-boost if needs be when the time comes to keep ISS from pulling a Skylab on us all.

As far as the Russians being diverted from going rogue at the ISS outset (in the Clinton years---it's been that long ago!) really do we know how well that turned out? Did Russian scientists/engineers/technicians help N. Korea or Iran in the intervening years to develop their nuclear and missile technologies? Dunno. But both states are far along in those areas since the '90s and today Russia is an aggressor nation invading its neighbor. So much for space cooperation making us all good neighbors and partners.

And, finally---So what if we never work with the Russians in space again? What do we lose when we can work with ESA and JAXA? If you think you might want in on your guys going to the moon or if you want in on the next Mars rover, who is ESA and JAXA gonna partner with? Right---Us. Not Russia who's never been to the moon or landed a single rover on Mars.

Russia---Who needs them???

 

[Peartree]

2) Russia has already publicly stated they're leaving year after next. So let them go.

Well yes... and No.

Russia has blustered and made public intimations that they intend, eventually, to pull out of the ISS partnership. But what they've actually *said* is that it is their intention, eventually, to notify NASA, as they contractually obligated, that they will cease participating 12 months in advance of their actually quitting. And, to date, they have not officially notified NASA of any such thing. So, all they've done is bloviated and threatened to file paperwork that starts a 12 month clock.

In other words... nothing.

 

[tfrielin]

Well yes... and No.

Russia has blustered and made public intimations that they intend, eventually, to pull out of the ISS partnership. But what they've actually *said* is that it is their intention, eventually, to notify NASA, as they contractually obligated, that they will cease participating 12 months in advance of their actually quitting. And, to date, they have not officially notified NASA of any such thing. So, all they've done is bloviated and threatened to file paperwork that starts a 12 month clock.

In other words... nothing.

Except the economic sanctions on top of Musk depriving them of dollars for their erstwhile $90m per Soyuz seat we had to cough up may result in them not being able to afford to launch their own guys into orbit.

Could happen...

The ISS is also aging---seals are beginning to show signs of failure. I expect to see more hardware/structural failures mount up---especially on the Russian side.

As their military hardware is showing---their stuff is mostly inferior to Western hardware.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

If we want to continue working with the ISS after Russia departs, and our other partners agree, why not boost it into a stable orbit (geosynchronous or other) and continue to do research outside of low earth orbit. Probably a lot less expensive to maintain a somewhat stable orbit than one that requires frequent modification.

I’m not sure changing the orbit of ISS even a little bit is technically feasible. It needs periodic boosts, but those are pretty low-thrust, long-duration boosts and require a lot of planning and care, and they don’t change the orbit significantly. The ISS is not designed to take much acceleration, so I can’t imagine how long it would have to be under thrust to move it significantly. Years maybe?

 

[prfesser]

I’m not sure changing the orbit of ISS even a little bit is technically feasible. It needs periodic boosts, but those are pretty low-thrust, long-duration boosts and require a lot of planning and care, and they don’t change the orbit significantly. The ISS is not designed to take much acceleration, so I can’t imagine how long it would have to be under thrust to move it significantly. Years maybe?

If anyone would like to do some orbital calculations---I'm too lazy---here was a report from 2015 giving burn duration and delta-V. From https://space.stackexchange.com/que...-does-iss-require-re-boosting-to-higher-orbit.

That burn apparently raised the average altitude of the ISS from 398 km to 400 km...

ISS Daily Summary Report – 05/06/15

ISS Reboost: This morning, the ISS performed a reboost using 58P thrusters to set up phasing requirements for 41S landing scheduled on May 13. Burn duration was 12 minutes, 17 seconds with a Delta-V of 1.34 meters/second.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

What would it take to get rid of it?

Would it have to be cut into pieces and then dropped into the Pacific a few at a time?

That would be quite the undertaking.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Maybe like in a messy break-up where someone ends up throwing the ex’s belongings out of the upstairs window onto their car below, we can cut the Russian section lose and de-orbit it onto Moscow. “There! Take back your stupid module, you weak and worthless piece of poo!”

 

[boomtube-mk2]

I’m not sure changing the orbit of ISS even a little bit is technically feasible. It needs periodic boosts, but those are pretty low-thrust, long-duration boosts and require a lot of planning and care, and they don’t change the orbit significantly. The ISS is not designed to take much acceleration, so I can’t imagine how long it would have to be under thrust to move it significantly. Years maybe?

So, there will be no strapping surplus Space Shuttle SRBs to it then let-er-rip?

 

[Antares JS]

Despite Russian blustering from time to time, I don't think it's feasible for them to just close their hatches and fly off to join up with China and its embryonic Space Station. Or just go it alone. Those through-the-hatch cables---some designed, some ad hoc over the years--feed data and electricity to other parts of the ISS. Removing them will be problematical.

As I already said in my post, no, it's not feasible. It would require (a) risky spacewalk(s) to disconnect things that were not built to ever be disconnected.

Plus, I don't know the orbital mechanics involved, but a detached Russian Rump Station may not even be able to link up with China---what's the orbital inclination of each?

The Chinese space station is at 41.6 degrees and the ISS is at 51.6 degrees. There is no realistic way to affect a plane change like that with something as large as a space station without a lot of unwanted structural stress. Notably, the Soyuz also can't launch to a 41.6 degree inclination. The station was put at the inclination it has in order to accomodate the Russians.

If we want to continue working with the ISS after Russia departs, and our other partners agree, why not boost it into a stable orbit (geosynchronous or other) and continue to do research outside of low earth orbit. Probably a lot less expensive to maintain a somewhat stable orbit than one that requires frequent modification.

Because the ISS is huge and it's a weird shape. It would take a lot of energy and inflict a lot of stress on the structure.

Copy/pasted from the other thread because it applies here:

[Being a shadow of what it was] applies in a big way to [Russia's] space program as well. Just look at their attempts to replace the Soyuz or get the Angara rocket going - very little progress has been made on that. Vostochny Cosmodrome, significant because it would allow them to fly manned flights their own territory rather than continuing to rent Baikonur from Kazakhstan, has seen delays that make SLS seem like a shining jewel of effective program management by comparison because the higher-ups kept stealing the money that was supposed to go into it.

There is one simple reason why I don't take Russia's threats to leave the ISS seriously: if they leave the ISS, their manned space program is finished. The Soyuz has nothing else to do and nowhere else to go. They can't reach the orbit of the Chinese space station from their territory and have no ability to put up another station of their own.

It's quite sad to see a space program that once rivaled America's and produced the most efficient kerolox rocket engines in the world decline so badly.

 

[Antares JS]

So, there will be no strapping surplus Space Shuttle SRBs to it then let-er-rip?

How are you planning to get a loaded shuttle SRB into orbit in the first place? Each one of those things was 1/3 the mass of the entire stack.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

How are you planning to get a loaded shuttle SRB into orbit in the first place? Each one of those things was 1/3 the mass of the entire stack.

Details, details.
Why you got to rain on my parade?

 

[tfrielin]

Except the economic sanctions on top of Musk depriving them of dollars for their erstwhile $90m per Soyuz seat we had to cough up may result in not being able to afford to launch their own guys into orbit.

Could happen...

The ISS is also aging---seals are beginning to show signs of failure. I expect to see more hardware/structural failures mount up---especially on the Russin side.

As their military hardware is showing---their stuff is mostly inferior to Western hardware.

So, there will be no strapping surplus Space Shuttle SRBs to it then let-er-rip?

1) If you could get an SRB into orbit. Big if.
2) Even if you could and somehow strap it on, the thrust would rip the Station apart.

Other than that…

 

[boatgeek]

How are you planning to get a loaded shuttle SRB into orbit in the first place? Each one of those things was 1/3 the mass of the entire stack.

Obviously this is a job for a cluster of N5800s. A really big cluster with carefully staggered firing times.

 

[Antares JS]

Obviously this is a job for a cluster of N5800s. A really big cluster with carefully staggered firing times.

Just for fun, the shuttle SRB's weigh about 1.3 million pounds each. This converts to a little bit less 5.8 million newtons. Not counting the added weight of the N5800's, it would take 1000 of them firing at once just to barely get your T/W above 1.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

Obviously this is a job for a cluster of N5800s. A really big cluster with carefully staggered firing times.

Just for fun, the shuttle SRB's weigh about 1.3 million pounds each. This converts to a little bit less 5.8 million newtons. Not counting the added weight of the N5800's, it would take 1000 of them firing at once just to barely get your T/W above 1.

You know, you're just sucking all of the reality out of our delusions.