Astroprof’s Page

Now, many of the early goals of space stations faded. Von Braun envisioned orbital communication centers, with switchboards and operators to handle long distance calls. Electronics and satellite technologies made such mundane space station duties obsolete before the first station was even built. But, he still thought of space stations as being important way stations to the Moon and beyond. Shuttlecraft would ferry passengers and supplies to the stations, where lunar and interplanetary craft would dock and then fly onward. Such craft would be optimized for their missions, and would have no need to enter Earth’s atmosphere. Since people would be living and working in space stations, then it would be natural for science to be done there, as well. Laboratories would be set up to conduct experiments best suited for low gravity conditions. However, these sort of experiments were secondary to the mission of the space stations, as envisioned by the early space station proponents. During the golden years of NASA, the Apollo years, it looked as if these dreams would become reality. Alas, budget cuts killed such auspicious plans. NASA was faced with a choice: a space station or a shuttle. They picked a shuttle, feeling that a space station might follow for the shuttle to which the shuttle could eventually shuttle from Earth. The Soviet Union and the United States both began work on space stations in the early 1970’s. The Soviets placed several Salyut modules into orbit. These were self contained space vehicles that were manned by crew delivered in separately launched Soyuz spacecraft. They could be operated for extended periods and later variants could be resupplied by unmanned supply craft. The Salyut program culminated in Mir, whose first module was basically a souped up Salyut. Addition modules were added, and Mir was operated for many years, being served by Progress Modules, Soyuz craft, and even the American Space Shuttle. It was truly a space station. However, NASA also put a space station into orbit: Skylab. The Skylab station was basically a modified Saturn-V third stage, fitted as a living and working unit rather than as a rocket. Three missions to Skylab arrived via Apollo capsules launched on Saturn-1b rockets. As the name implies, Skylab was mainly a scientific station, with experiments conducted in microgravity.By the 1980’s, NASA wanted another space station. We couldn’t let the Soviets have all the fun, right? However, NASA was never really funded sufficiently to build a station. Sure, there were plans, and studies, and some work done on the Space Station Freedom, which never was constructed. But, it was apparent that the space station would be very expensive. But, did we really need it? With no space station to send a shuttle to, SpaceLab modules were constructed to fly aboard the Space Shuttle. Extended missions of the shuttle could go for over two weeks performing studies aboard the SpaceLab. Essentially, this made the Space Shuttle a temporary space station. So, did we really need a space station? In a sense, NASA sort of shot themselves in the foot by coming up with an alternative to a space station, since it was harder to justify to the government bean counters why we needed a space station to do what the Shuttle could already do. Besides, we eventually even had our own astronauts and experiments being performed on Mir, for the science experiments that needed longer times in microgravity. But, Mir could only last so long. Eventually, someone came to an idea of a joint space station. Already, both Russia and the United States were working on Mir, so perhaps they could work together to fund and operate a bigger and better space station. And, for that matter, other nations could join in and support the endeavor, with money, equipment, etc. We could share the costs. The International Space Station (ISS) was born. The thing was supposed to be much larger than Mir, able to house at least double the astronauts. The problem is that a space station is a sort of autonomous spacecraft, and spacecraft are complicated to operate. It takes about two crewmembers to operate the station, and the rest to do science. Naturally, if you have more than two crewmembers, then they can trade off duties, but two will always be on duty running the station. So, four crew members could do twice the work of three, and five crewmembers could do three times the work of just three. However, the Soyuz craft that served as the primary transport and escape craft for both Mir and the ISS could accommodate only three. That was fine, though, since NASA was going to develop a new crew vehicle that could handle more, allowing for a larger station crew. Then, things went really bad with the Russian economy. NASA wound up footing basically the entire bill for the station. The whole point with having the Russians onboard as partners was supposed to be so that we could get a space station, and neither nation would have to foot the whole bill. Well, Russia could not come up with the money to build their components. So, we gave them the money to build their contribution. We provided the money to put it up there, and we provide financial support to help the Russian space agency to keep running to keep supplying the station and to operate the backup mission control. So, instead of sharing costs, we’ve footed most of the bill. But, that cuts into NASA’s budget. Something has to give. Some science was lost, and so were plans for a larger crew vehicle. So, that meant that the station crew would have to remain at three.Constructing the space station involves a major expense, not only on the ground, but in space. A lot of time is needed to build the station, and many components are designed to be delivered or assembled with the aid of the Space Shuttle, or with the additional personnel that fly with the Shuttle to dock with the ISS. In fact, since 2000, only two shuttle flights have not been to the ISS. Then, the Columbia accident happened (one of only two flights not ISS related in three years). With the Shuttle fleet grounded, a new problem arose. Russian Progress modules are not able to keep the ISS supplied for three people. So, the crew had to be reduced to two until the Shuttle could fly again. That means that about all the crew has time to do is keep the station operating. There is very little time left for science. The ISS isn’t finished yet, but there should be far more science coming out of it. There has been precious little since the Columbia accident. It has mainly been a budget black hole for NASA. The ISS was supposed to be done by 2005. Even by 2003, it was years behind schedule and vastly over budget. It will take dozens more shuttle flights to really finish the thing as planned. There won’t be dozens more shuttle flights to it, though. We’ll be lucky if the ISS is mostly finished by the time the Shuttle fleet is retired from service. But, then what? Once the shuttles are gone, the crew goes back to just two crewmembers: just enough to keep the station operating? So, why bother? Unless we have a new vehicle capable of allowing us to properly staff and supply the ISS, why should we actually spend the money to finish it? OK, backing out of the deal now makes us look bad. But, we already look bad. Already, there is little that can be done aboard the station unless we have more crewmembers. There is talk of keeping two Soyuz craft there, allowing more crewmembers to be there, but that costs money, which Russia does not have. We’d have to foot the bill for that. And besides, that still does not solve the supply problem. We’d have to devise a new supply craft. But, wouldn’t that be like making a new crew vehicle? It seems that we’ve got ourselves into a fine mess. It would be silly to back out now after so much time and effort, and at the cost of so much else that has been put aside to fund this program. On the other hand, it is stupid to continue if we can not afford to do it right. And besides, we don’t seem to have any idea what we want to do with the thing once it is built!Now, don’t get me wrong. I think that having a space station is a good idea. Also, an international cooperative venture is a very good idea. However, a space station done wrong is worse than none at all. It is a waste of money. That’s just my opinion. -Astroprof

Leave a Reply