Putting the ISS to some use at last. Maybe.

[SirNitram]

Link

Consider the International Space Station, that marvel of incremental engineering. It has close to 15,000 cubic feet of livable space; 10 modules, or living and working areas; a Canadian robot arm that can repair the station from outside; and the capacity to keep five astronauts (including the occasional wealthy rubbernecking space tourist) in good health for long periods. It has gleaming, underused laboratories; its bathroom is fully repaired; and its exercycle is ready for vigorous mandatory workouts.

The only problem with this $156 billion manifestation of human genius -- a project as large as a football field that has been called the single most expensive thing ever built -- is that it's still going nowhere at a very high rate of speed. And as a scientific research platform, it still has virtually no purpose and is accomplishing nothing.

I try not to write this cavalierly. But if the station's goal is to conduct yet more research into the effects of zero gravity on human beings, well, there's more than enough of that already salted away in Russian archives, based on the many years of weightlessness that cosmonauts heroically logged in a series of space stations throughout the 1970s, '80s and '90s. By now, ISS crews have also spent serious time in zero gravity. We know exactly what weightlessness does and how to counter some of its atrophying effects. (Cue shot of exercycle.)

And if the station's purpose is to act as a "stepping stone" to places beyond -- well, that metaphor, most recently used by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is pure propaganda. As any student of celestial mechanics can tell you, if you want to go somewhere in space, the best policy is to go directly there and not stop along the way, because stopping is a waste of precious fuel, time and treasure. Which is a pretty good description of the ISS, parked as it is in constant low Earth orbit.

This is no doubt why, after the horrifying disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003, the Bush administration belatedly recognized that, if we're going to spend all that money on manned spaceflight, we should justify the risks by actually sending our astronauts somewhere. So NASA is now developing a new generation of rockets and manned spacecraft. By 2020, the Constellation program is supposed to take astronauts beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since Apollo 17 returned from the moon in 1972. Yes, that'll be almost 50 years. Where will they go? To the moon -- the only place humans have already visited.

Which leads us right back to the expensively orbiting ISS. It hasn't a fig-leaf's role left. The moon is the new "stepping stone," with Mars bruited as a next destination. Although NASA officials will never quite say so, their current attitude seems to be that the station is essentially a high-maintenance distraction, even a mistake. Their plan is to finish assembling the thing ASAP and hand the keys over to the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese, with minimal continuing U.S. involvement. This should happen by the shuttle's mandatory retirement in 2010. Meanwhile, we're still writing a lot of high-denomination checks and preparing the two remaining shuttles for risky flights to finish something we then plan to be largely rid of. This seems absurd. I have an alternative proposal:

Send the ISS somewhere.

The ISS, you see, is already an interplanetary spacecraft -- at least potentially. It's missing a drive system and a steerage module, but those are technicalities. Although it's ungainly in appearance, it's designed to be boosted periodically to a higher altitude by a shuttle, a Russian Soyuz or one of the upcoming new Constellation program Orion spacecraft. It could fairly easily be retrofitted for operations beyond low-Earth orbit. In principle, we could fly it almost anywhere within the inner solar system -- to any place where it could still receive enough solar power to keep all its systems running.

It's easy to predict what skeptics both inside and outside NASA will say to this idea. They'll point out that the new Constellation program is already supposed to have at least the beginnings of interplanetary ability. They'll say that the ISS needs to be resupplied too frequently for long missions. They'll worry about the amount of propellant needed to push the ISS's 1,040,000 pounds anywhere -- not to mention bringing them all back.

There are good answers to all these objections. We'll still need the new Constellation Ares boosters and Orion capsules -- fortuitously, they can easily be adapted to a scenario in which the ISS becomes the living- area and lab core of an interplanetary spacecraft. The Ares V heavy-lift booster could easily send aloft the additional supplies and storage and drive modules necessary to make the ISS truly deep-space-worthy.

The Orion crew exploration module is designed to be ISS-compatible. It could serve as a guidance system and also use its own rocket engine to help boost and orient the interplanetary ISS. After remaining dormant for much of the one-year journey to, say, Mars, it could then be available to conduct independent operations while the ISS core orbited the Red Planet, or to investigate an asteroid near Earth, for instance.

But, the skeptics will say, the new Orion capsule's engines wouldn't be nearly enough; a spacecraft as large as the ISS would need its own drive system. Here, too, we're in surprisingly good shape. The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think. Moreover, a drive system doesn't have to be based on chemical rockets. Over the past two decades, both the U.S. and Japanese programs have conducted highly successful tests in space of ion-drive systems. Unlike the necessarily impatient rockets we use to escape Earth's gravity and reach orbit, these long-duration, low-thrust engines produce the kind of methodical acceleration (and deceleration) appropriate for travel once a spacecraft is already floating in zero gravity. They would be a perfect way to send the ISS on its way and bring it back to Earth again.

This leaves a lander. A lunar lander substantially larger than the spidery Apollo-era LEMs is currently on the drawing board. It's not nearly as far along in development as the Ares booster and Orion spacecraft components of the Constellation program -- which is a good thing. While I question the need to return to the moon in the first place, I wouldn't exclude it as a possible destination, so I think we should modify the lander's design to make it capable of touching down on either the moon or Mars and then returning to the ISS with samples for study in its laboratories. Such landers could also investigate the moon's poles, where we think water may be present, or one of the near-Earth asteroids -- which may have raw materials suitable for use by future generations of space explorers.

But, our skeptics will sputter, this will all cost far more money than the Constellation program. Who'll pay for it?

Actually, it will in effect save all the money we've already spent on the ISS. And the station is already an international project, with substantial financial and technological input from the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese. In recent years, the Chinese, who have developed their own human spaceflight capabilities, have made repeated overtures to NASA, hoping to be let in on the ISS project. They've been unceremoniously rebuffed by the Bush administration, but a new administration may be more welcoming. An interplanetary ISS -- the acronym now standing for International Space Ship -- would be a truly international endeavor, with expenses shared among all participating nations.

ad_icon

How likely is any of this to happen? Not very. A lot depends on the flexibility of a NASA that hasn't always been particularly welcoming to outside ideas. On the other hand, the agency also collaborates with outsiders all the time. So it's not impossible. The reason the ISS went from being a purely American, Reagan-era project ("Space Station Freedom") to one including the Russians and many other nations was a political decision by the Clinton administration. A similar political vision will be necessary here.

All the billions already spent on the space station would pay off -- spectacularly -- if this product of human ingenuity actually went somewhere and did something. But it would also serve as a compelling demonstration that we're one species, living on one planet, and that we're as capable of cooperating peacefully as we are at competing militaristically. Let's begin the process of turning the ISS from an Earth-orbiting caterpillar into an interplanetary butterfly.

Fly me to the Moon... Let me play among the stars...

[CaptainChewbacca]

Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars...

I wish someone would have the gumption to propose that and start getting things done, but it won't happen. At best, when they start the NEXT space station, they'll send the ISS to the moon.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Another thought, moments after submitting;

What if (as Nitram's song directs) we just sent the thing to the MOON. Start building the next-generation space station in orbit around the earth, and send the ISS to the moon to serve as a platform for surveying and research missions. Regular trips back-and-forth between the stations, and we could start building up a lunar infrastructure.

[Hawkwings]

Or, if it's not too difficult, we could have the ISS do regular runs to and from the moon. Drop off a couple astronauts and their equipment, go back with samples, come back a few weeks later with a replacement crew, more supplies, ferry the old crew back to Earth, etc.

We just need a way to transfer people and supplies between the station and the moon.

[SirNitram]

Or, if it's not too difficult, we could have the ISS do regular runs to and from the moon. Drop off a couple astronauts and their equipment, go back with samples, come back a few weeks later with a replacement crew, more supplies, ferry the old crew back to Earth, etc.

We just need a way to transfer people and supplies between the station and the moon.

Lunar landers? If there's as much easily-accessible H3 as we hope, they could be reusable.

[Crayz9000]

The only thing is that the ISS isn't suited to high delta-V maneuvers. It's basically a giant set of Tinkertoys, with the modules being the sticks and the connecting hubs the wheels. It would be fine to move it once, gently, but to use it as a shuttle? Insane.

[Starglider]

It would be fine to move it once, gently, but to use it as a shuttle? Insane.

The ISS already undergoes regular reboost operations. I doubt the total delta-V matters, the structure is built to take a certain G loading, and it can get to the moon (and back) in a reasonable time span with a thrust considerably lower than what the reboost maneuvers use. Of course if ion propulsion is applied then this is a total non-issue.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The only thing is that the ISS isn't suited to high delta-V maneuvers. It's basically a giant set of Tinkertoys, with the modules being the sticks and the connecting hubs the wheels. It would be fine to move it once, gently, but to use it as a shuttle? Insane.

Most actual spacecraft aren't appreciably stronger. And with something the mass of the ISS, the only way you're going to move it quickly is with Clarke-tech. The ISS should have plenty of structural integrity for low-impulse, long duration burns needed to stick it into, say, a Earth-to-Mars Hohmann transfer orbit. Or anywhere else, provided you're willing to be patient. The ISS has more living space and significantly higher life support capacity than the old Apollo spacecraft did. It wouldn't need to be quick. Especially not for an Earth-to-Moon, or Earth-to-NEO asteroid trip.

[Paolo]

The author writes this...

"As any student of celestial mechanics can tell you, if you want to go somewhere in space, the best policy is to go directly there and not stop along the way, because stopping is a waste of precious fuel, time and treasure. Which is a pretty good description of the ISS, parked as it is in constant low Earth orbit. "

...then contradicts himself by writing this...

"The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think."

If you're going to argue that orbital launches are great, it's kind of silly to argue that waylaying in orbit is dumb.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

The ISS should have plenty of structural integrity for low-impulse, long duration burns needed to stick it into, say, a Earth-to-Mars Hohmann transfer orbit. Or anywhere else, provided you're willing to be patient. The ISS has more living space and significantly higher life support capacity than the old Apollo spacecraft did. It wouldn't need to be quick. Especially not for an Earth-to-Moon, or Earth-to-NEO asteroid trip.

If you're planning on sending people, you can't be patient. You need to get where you're going fast because of radiation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The author writes this...

"As any student of celestial mechanics can tell you, if you want to go somewhere in space, the best policy is to go directly there and not stop along the way, because stopping is a waste of precious fuel, time and treasure. Which is a pretty good description of the ISS, parked as it is in constant low Earth orbit. "

...then contradicts himself by writing this...

"The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think."

If you're going to argue that orbital launches are great, it's kind of silly to argue that waylaying in orbit is dumb.

You are an idiot. It is more efficient to keep something in orbit, where it no longer has to escape from the ground, and resupply it/have it drops stuff, and have it go elsewhere, than continually sending new objects into space.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem I see with this is that, in order to use it with a new spacecraft, you'd still have to stop the rest of the ship at the ISS to dock (at a minimum). I'm sure that the ISS has a nice, big living room already set up, but I'd still like to know if it would be worth it for whatever new spacecraft we come up with. Clever idea, though.

[Guardsman Bass]

I like the idea of sending it into orbit around the Moon. That would be an incentive to actually get those spacecraft capable of getting us back there in the future ready for use (or an incentive to abandon the ISS and start a new space station - a waste of money, but not entirely a bad thing).

[Guardsman Bass]

Not to mention that the Moon is close enough to keep in constant radio contact, as well as re-supply. I wouldn't use the ISS itself as a constant Earth-to-Moon shuttle, but perhaps you could build some robotic craft that did that type of thing (fly into high Earth orbit, pick up supplies, fly to Moon station, drop off supplies, fly back to Earth, and so on and so forth).

[His Divine Shadow]

It would be fine to move it once, gently, but to use it as a shuttle? Insane.

The ISS already undergoes regular reboost operations. I doubt the total delta-V matters, the structure is built to take a certain G loading, and it can get to the moon (and back) in a reasonable time span with a thrust considerably lower than what the reboost maneuvers use. Of course if ion propulsion is applied then this is a total non-issue.

Couldn't it be put i some funky orbit that has it coming near both the moon and earth, that way it'd always be going back and forth on it's own.

[PeZook]

Couldn't it be put i some funky orbit that has it coming near both the moon and earth, that way it'd always be going back and forth on it's own.

No, because that would mean that to dock a lunar lander to it, you'd need to put the lander on a return trajectory to Earth anyway.

Using the ISS as a lunar shuttle is insane, because it's completely uneconomical. You'd essentially be hauling this huge structure, complete with a large long-time living space and all laboratories back and forth just to move supplies or a few astronauts.

It would be far, far more sensible to just use a dedicated spacecraft, unconcerned with comforts. Living space = mass, and you don't need much living space to do a four-day trip to the Moon with people or supplies.

I actually think it's a neat idea, but to pull it off, we need to have the Orion up and running, so that astronauts can have an escape pod when orbiting the Moon. Also, some sort of supply shuttle would be absolutely crucial (maybe a Soyuz-based Progress ship with a bigger service module?)

[Sea Skimmer]

By the time we could finish jury rigging the ISS into a ship fit to go to the moon, we’d have spent so much money we could have just built a dedicated ship for the job. Mars is just totally out of the question, the thing doesn’t have enough radiation shielding. The ISS was a mistake and would never have been funded had anyone had a realistic cost estimate of it (I mean these are the same people at work who said the Space Shuttle could turn a profit for NASA!) but we’ve gotten stuck with it. We’ll have to squeeze whatever research we can out of it, then hopefully it can be put to good use as an ASAT target.

[Sarevok]

ASAT target ? The ISS does have plenty of solar panels and who knows how many cutting edge sensors of all kind. Can't it be stripped of all manned presence and used as the worlds largest surveillance + communication satelite ?

[Starglider]

ASAT target ? The ISS does have plenty of solar panels and who knows how many cutting edge sensors of all kind. Can't it be stripped of all manned presence and used as the worlds largest surveillance + communication satelite ?

It isn't in a good orbit for either of those. Moving it would be very expensive, probably moreso than just launching equivalent satellites.

[Guardsman Bass]

Could we cannibalize it for parts for the spacecraft for the Moon? Of course, that would entail assembling a spaceship in orbit, and the other occupants of the space station from different countries might not be too happy .. .

[Themightytom]

Could we cannibalize it for parts for the spacecraft for the Moon? Of course, that would entail assembling a spaceship in orbit, and the other occupants of the space station from different countries might not be too happy .. .

or maybe we can crash it into Austrailia!

[Commander 598]

Someone knows too much...

[Uraniun235]

Has anyone done a comparison of the research accomplished by ISS and the research accomplished by Skylab?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Has anyone done a comparison of the research accomplished by ISS and the research accomplished by Skylab?

It is expected the ISS will make a bigger antipodean crater.

[Paolo]

You are an idiot. It is more efficient to keep something in orbit, where it no longer has to escape from the ground, and resupply it/have it drops stuff, and have it go elsewhere, than continually sending new objects into space.

Apparently you can't read. I just pointed out that the author simultaneously argued for and against parking in orbit.