Is the space station a financial obligation that NASA congress desires to
get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not
finance?  I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this.  The space
station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle
is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into
obsolesete out post by 2015.  Perhaps the DOE will have something else have
another target to practice on?

If anything we should turn ISS over to the private sector like the
ARPAnet became the internet awhile back.

Is the space station a financial obligation that NASA congress desires to
get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not
finance?

I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space
station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle
is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into
obsolesete out post by 2015.

I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space
station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle
is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into
obsolesete out post by 2015.

To be obsolete, there needs to be something better in orbit. There
won't be... ISS will still be by far the most advanced facility in
orbit. China's mini-stations and Bigelow's hotels pale in comparison.

and the odds are it will be through at least 2020, they'll force NASA
to continue to use it, "to get the most that we can out of our
taxpayer investment". Yes, that means the Moon/Mars plans will be
pushed back. Wayyyyy back.

Brian Thorn wrote:

and the odds are it will be through at least 2020, they'll force NASA
to continue to use it, "to get the most that we can out of our
taxpayer investment". Yes, that means the Moon/Mars plans will be
pushed back. Wayyyyy back.

With the Shuttle gone, the USA will be without cargo capacity to the
ISS.

And until CEV is functional (if it is ever), it will simply need
to buy seats on Suyuz for creemember transport, as well as cargo
capacity on Progress and/or ATV.

However, the USA will still contribute much to the station, in terms of
electrical power, telecommunications, mission control centre, station
control, ventilation/cooling, and possibly O2 production and CO2 removal
should the USA devices prove to be reliable.

But this will not cost the USA that much money. So it should be fairly
easy for the USA to continue to fund its new more limited role in the
ISS. And strategically, continued funding will pevent the rest of the
world from taking over control of the station.

The USA will not have anything capable of launching cargo to the ISS,
even less new modules, or replacement CMGs or other large items.

Canned O2 for Quest (airlock and ECLSS) will need to be shipped on
Progress or ATV.

In terms of its role, the station is the best platform on which to
conduct testing for components for a mars mission. This is especially
true if the USA O2 production and CO2 removal units need to be fine
tuned/debugged before they can be declared reliable. (same with any
closed loop systems with water).

Despite its inclination, the ISS *might* be a logical place to assemble
a mars expedition ship since it already supports life, has the robotics,
telecom and already has regular supplies.

If they decide to assemble at a different orbit, then the fate of ISS
will be very similar to that of Mir. Once all supply shps will go to the
new expedition ship orbit, there just won't be funds left to operate ISS
and it will probably then be de-orbited.

That's the point of the COTS program. Still, if that falls through, there
is Progress, ATV, and possibly HTV.

Again, that's the point of the COTS program. Also, there is the possibility
that if Ares/Orion continues that we would see Orion flights to ISS.

ATV is pretty huge. It makes Progress look puny by comparison.

top of that, ISS was never designed to be an assembly location. You'd
almost certainly have lots of issues to deal with that would require
upgrades to ISS. For example, the CMG's might not have enough control

Developping another ATV is pointless. It would still be limited by the
tiny russian hatches.

Duh. HTV.

2012 or whatever, I think the Russians will exercise an increased role in
determining what level of activity occurs on the station and who gets to go
there .... not claiming salvage rights, but a similar concept.

That's the point of the COTS program. Still, if that falls through, there
is Progress, ATV, and possibly HTV.

Does anybody really believe that private industry will develop some
automated cargo ship with all the guidance systems that would allow it
to get near enough the station to be berthed to a CBM hatch in just a
couple of years ?

It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do. In hindsight, the ISS is a rather grandiose
project. Perhaps the number of launches budgeted for ISS was determined at
a time when STS launch rates were expected to be higher.

I think, again in
hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules and
a few solar panels.

(although I am not sure if this week's definition of "assembly complete"
inlcudes toilet and other water capabilities on the USA segment.)