PDA

View Full Version : Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take it Anymore



Gorn
2018-May-20, 06:30 PM
Hello. What sort of bugs me these days is reading material either from a newspaper or online where is mentions the price or cost of the ISS.

I read recently that NASA has about $75 billion dollars invested in it plus it's maintenance cost.

Then later I heard it costing about $150 billion dollars. Now which is it?

I think NASA should mention it's cost..plus maintenance. Then have that published on their website.

People should be 'lambasted, ridiculed, sanctioned, etc. for inaccurate reporting or journalist error and be ostracized by..hmm..everyone until
they correct there inaccurate article.

The drive for accuracy in reporting is something that people should demand before something is published. If not..then there is an obvious problem with 'someone' which should
be corrected.

It's really tiresome to read different numbers for things. And if someone is publishing numbers which are inaccurate...than they should really be called on it..and
there article should be 'ignored.'

Also, can someone tell me why..WHY..can't this ISS simply be 'stored' in a graveyard orbit above Earth if you cannot afford to travel to it...or even send the entire thing to
the Moon? Please don't tell me NASA can't do that. This agency went to the Moon after all.

Thanks
G

Shaula
2018-May-20, 06:56 PM
Hello. What sort of bugs me these days is reading material either from a newspaper or online where is mentions the price or cost of the ISS.
I read recently that NASA has about $75 billion dollars invested in it plus it's maintenance cost.
Then later I heard it costing about $150 billion dollars. Now which is it?
$150 billion looks to be the total cost estimated in 2010. NASA didn't pay for everything, you know. $75 billion looks to the inflation adjusted figure for NASA's budget to run it. Sounds like you just need to do a little digging to get to the bottom of it - the numbers are out there.


Also, can someone tell me why..WHY..can't this ISS simply be 'stored' in a graveyard orbit above Earth if you cannot afford to travel to it...
Because it is in LEO. You don't really have graveyard orbits in LEO, you drop things into the ocean instead. Anything approaching a graveyard orbit for the ISS would require a huge delta-v. It would probably require us to develop a new system to provide it. And launch it. And its fuel. It's just not really feasible, especially given the size of the ISS.


or even send the entire thing to the Moon? Please don't tell me NASA can't do that. This agency went to the Moon after all.
You might want to do the maths for that transfer orbit. Then work out how the heck we'd supply that much boost.

Chuck
2018-May-20, 07:50 PM
Maybe it could be sold to one of those billionaire space enthusiasts.

Gorn
2018-May-20, 08:46 PM
$150 billion looks to be the total cost estimated in 2010. NASA didn't pay for everything, you know. $75 billion looks to the inflation adjusted figure for NASA's budget to run it. Sounds like you just need to do a little digging to get to the bottom of it - the numbers are out there.


Because it is in LEO. You don't really have graveyard orbits in LEO, you drop things into the ocean instead. Anything approaching a graveyard orbit for the ISS would require a huge delta-v. It would probably require us to develop a new system to provide it. And launch it. And its fuel. It's just not really feasible, especially given the size of the ISS.


You might want to do the maths for that transfer orbit. Then work out how the heck we'd supply that much boost.

*I know there are no 'graveyard' orbits in LEO.* I am thinking GEO. Also, the 150 billion dollar figure was in a 'recent' article. A lot of 'boost'. Hmm. Money, time, effort..hmm..this thing cost 100 BILLION DOLLARS. Don't know about you...but 'throwing' something like that away seems to me to be completely INSANE!

Shaula
2018-May-20, 10:06 PM
Trying to boost something as big as the ISS from LEO to GEO, including having to develop, deploy and operate a whole bunch of new systems to do it, just because it was quite expensive seems insane to me. Especially since it was designed to be a manned system so to use it effectively again in the future the odds are you'd have to bring it back down again.

What scientific benefits do you think mothballing the ISS in this very expensive way might bring? Compared to, say, building a new one? Build cost was less than the $150 billion figure. And by the time you've invented, deployed and operated something that can boost a space station to GEO and bring it back I can't imagine you'd have spent much less than you would have on a new, improved ISS.

Swift
2018-May-20, 10:20 PM
This section of the forum is for astronomy and space exploration questions with straightforward, generally accepted answers.

The OP does contain a couple of straightforward budget questions, but is mostly a rant and some proposals about what to do with the ISS. It doesn't seem appropriate for Q&A and is moved to Space Exploration.

cjameshuff
2018-May-20, 10:44 PM
The ISS is 420 metric tons of obsolete hardware that's decades old, maintenance intensive, wearing out, and increasingly expensive to operate. The value of the ISS is not how much was spent on it, that money's already been spent and you've gotten most of what you're going to get out of it. You could pour immense amounts of resources into a pointless attempt to delay moving on to something new, but you'll just be wasting money, delaying progress, and likely getting someone killed.

AGN Fuel
2018-May-20, 11:50 PM
The capital outlay is one side of the equation. Have you taken into account the value of the science conducted? The techniques developed for living & working in a low-G environment? The links created through the international co-operation required to develop, run and maintain it?

Not to mention the incalculable benefits on the imagination and inspiration of every schoolkid who looks up at night and sees it majestically forging its way across the sky. There's not much at the moment to inspire this next generation of youth coming through, but the ISS bucks that trend. There's value in that.

Gorn
2018-May-21, 12:48 AM
The ISS is 420 metric tons of obsolete hardware that's decades old, maintenance intensive, wearing out, and increasingly expensive to operate. The value of the ISS is not how much was spent on it, that money's already been spent and you've gotten most of what you're going to get out of it. You could pour immense amounts of resources into a pointless attempt to delay moving on to something new, but you'll just be wasting money, delaying progress, and likely getting someone killed.

Hello. A space station would have uses just by physically being up there. You could change out what needs to be changed..bring up consumables, new solar arrays..etc. And since it is in a long term 'graveyard' orbit...you could take as long as you like to do these things before going up to meet it. (and or bring it down first)

cjameshuff
2018-May-21, 01:32 AM
Hello. A space station would have uses just by physically being up there. You could change out what needs to be changed..bring up consumables, new solar arrays..etc. And since it is in a long term 'graveyard' orbit...you could take as long as you like to do these things before going up to meet it. (and or bring it down first)

It's nothing more than a debris hazard "just physically being there". It can't be just left alone, it needs constant upkeep and maintenance. The structure, the insulation, the wiring, the plumbing, all the materials in the interior, are all aging and wearing out over time, and once it loses attitude control it will be extremely hazardous to dock with and regain control of. Nobody is going to want to try to resurrect and repair an old, unlivable space station when they could just launch a brand new one, especially when the new one can take advantage of new materials and construction technologies such as Bigelow's habitat modules.

You are suggesting that we launch enough mass in propulsion systems that we could instead have built a brand new station, just to move the old one into a different orbit in the hopes that someone at some future date will want to go through the same thing to move it again to a useful location, so they can then embark on a risky, low-payoff salvage operation. Overall, you're talking about something equivalent to launching 2-3 modern stations in order to salvage one old one. Nothing about the ISS would make it worth such a thing. Once we're done with it, it won't even have its value as scrap, due to the cost of moving it. The most you'll want to preserve is some samples for long-duration space environment exposure experiments, stuff that'd take another 20 years to reproduce after starting over.

Gorn
2018-May-21, 02:03 AM
Hello. I like your answers. I am just not sure whether I believe it.

Thanks though.
Bye
G

Jens
2018-May-21, 02:19 AM
Hello. I like your answers. I am just not sure whether I believe it.


Well, one thing to consider is that virtually nobody is suggesting that we follow your suggestion, and it's not simply that nobody thought of it. People typically ditch old space stations like Mir and Skylab for the same reasons.

Gorn
2018-May-21, 03:19 AM
Hello. Well..for hundreds of billions of dollars..I think it is time to start making space stations that will last for hundreds of years if not longer.
Hmm.......?

cjameshuff
2018-May-21, 04:00 AM
Hello. Well..for hundreds of billions of dollars..I think it is time to start making space stations that will last for hundreds of years if not longer.
Hmm.......?

Based on a couple decades of experience in building space stations? Predicting our future needs centuries in advance? Freezing our development of spacecraft structure and construction technologies for the next few centuries?
Would you like to rethink this idea yet?

Gorn
2018-May-21, 04:46 AM
Hello. No. One..and only one space station that lasts a long time. From there..you can build and advance all the technologies you want..or even do that from
the ground.

Note: These stations 'could' be built more 'robustly' like how thick is the shell of these modules up there? Like maybe 3 or 4 inches. How about..ahh 10 inches of solid granite
or iron?

Nicolas
2018-May-21, 08:32 AM
The shell integrity is the least of your worries for parts wearing out in a space station.

Glom
2018-May-21, 10:02 AM
Hello. No. One..and only one space station that lasts a long time. From there..you can build and advance all the technologies you want..or even do that from
the ground.

Note: These stations 'could' be built more 'robustly' like how thick is the shell of these modules up there? Like maybe 3 or 4 inches. How about..ahh 10 inches of solid granite
or iron?Solid granite? How much would that cost to launch?

Nicolas
2018-May-23, 11:10 AM
If you take granite from the top of a mountain, you get the first 5 km of altitude for free. [/kidding]

Glom
2018-May-23, 11:31 AM
If you take granite from the top of a mountain, you get the first 5 km of altitude for free. [/kidding]Pfa.

You know that altitude is not the issue. Speed is.

It's harder to keep it up than to get it up.