20

Given that the ISS will eventually come to the end of its mission (currently extended to 2020 (source)), would it be possible to re-purpose it for non-human space flight?

To clarify: does the equipment in orbit already provide enough utility to conduct useful science missions that would justify the operational costs and the costs of retrofitting the station?

It seems to me that risk and cost would be greatly reduced without a human crew, and we would be remiss to let all of that infrastructure de-orbit. But I don't know what kind off science experiments could be performed on the station remotely and if the benefits outweigh the costs.

Erik
  • 10,117
  • 2
  • 43
  • 72
superdesk
  • 849
  • 4
  • 10
  • 3
    You mean something along the lines of a Robonaut doing all the work? – TildalWave Aug 14 '14 at 13:04
  • Maybe self-contained experiments that just interface with the station for communication and power? I don't think Robonaut is advanced enough to replace a human crew (I don't know much about the bot though)... but maybe that in itself would be a worthwhile challenge. – superdesk Aug 14 '14 at 13:18
  • Without a crew I suppose it could be put in a stable orbit outside of its current protection against radiation. But it is huge compared to any unmanned probe. I wonder what it would take to make a "Moonbase Alpha" out of it in Lunar, Solar or interplanetary orbit :-p My instinct tells me that smaller purpose built missions would be more cost effective. – LocalFluff Aug 14 '14 at 15:32
  • Primarily, I think it would make a great source of parts for building whatever new station or long-distance craft. There's a lot of equipment that doesn't deteriorate with time, bringing which to the orbit could cost a fortune. – SF. Dec 18 '14 at 13:28
  • 2
    The only justification I can think of would be the AMS-02 experiment, which cost over $2 billion, and does not require crew interaction. But the overhead cost of ISS ops is enormous with or without crew. Also, ISS history shows that without crew presence, failures would render the station useless. Ever more so with everything reaching or past end of life. – Organic Marble Dec 20 '14 at 15:48
  • If it was to be moved to a considerably higher orbit, where it could stay for years, it could be just abandoned, with nearly zero upkeep costs. – SF. Jan 08 '15 at 03:27
  • Real question is: could it be extended "for ever"? I imagine a linear structure with FIFO mechanism: you place one module in orbit, than add 1, 2, 3 , more modules; after 10 years, you discard the module 1 and add module 4; 1 year later you discard module 2 and add module 5, and so on. The power/solar module would be the more complex, but this method should be technically feasible, IMHO. – jumpjack Feb 03 '15 at 10:16
  • I read somewhere that a major issue with the ISS is the worn-out airlocks. – Vedant Chandra May 29 '15 at 05:43
  • Update: Recent talk has been to allow ISS to operate to 2024, with a possibility to extend to 2028. But keep in mind that ISS's design life is 30 years, hence 2028 upper limit. – My Other Head Jan 11 '16 at 14:39
  • 1
    @MyOtherHead: There's always an option of replacing ailing modules whole. Not just airlocks or instruments, but say, deorbiting the whole battered Zvezda and putting an entirely new module in its place. Even lifting the dumb truss segments to which solar panels are attached in orbit must have cost a fortune, and they are unlikely to fail for several centuries. If we could reuse 30% of ISS in a new construction it would still save a lot. – SF. Jan 11 '16 at 15:51
  • 1
    @SF: I too would like to see the ISS left aloft, if only for the heritage value to future generations, if that were possible, but after thinking about it, I realise it's not that simple. Incremental replacement still locks you into the particular architecture that was prevalent when the ISS was being designed and developed. AFICT, there have been many advances in the mating and sealing and other technologies by which the various modules are assembled and integrated. The ISS partners have learned a lot about what works and what doesn't, and those lessons will be incorporated into the next xSS. – My Other Head Jan 11 '16 at 16:12
  • 1
    @MyOtherHead: That still doesn't prevent replacing 70% of ISS, even if it meant need to dump all the habitat/science modules. I still believe no better trusses have been invented since. :) – SF. Jan 11 '16 at 16:16
  • I'm betting the ISS partners might keep using the ISS for as long as possible, so maybe ?5 years beyond the design life, to ? 2033. – My Other Head Jan 11 '16 at 16:32

1 Answers1

4

As time goes by, the technological backbone of any system becomes dated and outmoded. For example, several of the space shuttle systems were still using items designed in the Apollo days. These can be refit to use newer technology (i.e. using laptops to supplement shuttle computers, new glass cockpit technology, etc.), but there always comes a point where it's cheaper to start over. That point depends on how fast the technology changes. Who knows what technology will be available by 2020.

Many of the ISS systems are already outmoded, sometime by the very research being done on the ISS. Things like full environment recycling (air, water, etc). are critical to a long duration stay in space. Sounds like some of these systems, currently in use, are barely functional and need daily maintenance. This leads to re-thinking and re-engineering.

As far as robotic research, there is much that can be done by robots, but we're a long way from being able to do everything. And some things can't be done, such as studying human reaction to space, which is one of the key goals of the ISS.

wdtj
  • 311
  • 1
  • 5
  • The technology used on ISS may be outdated, but the raw materials (aluminium, titanium, plastics, etc.) do not have expiration dates. You have 419 tons already in LEO. Although costly to disassemble and re-assemble (using robotics and 3D printing), this may be the cheaper long-term solution (that relaunching an equivalent amount of mass/new technology). With the added scientific purpose of practicing disassembling and re-assembling things in space (something that we eventually will have to do on Mars and the moon). – bonna Mar 21 '19 at 14:22