International Space Station life 'to be extended'

[hunter]

Nasa has reportedly won White House backing to extend the life of the International Space Station for four years until 2024.

Construction of the ISS began in 1998 and is a joint venture between the US, Russia, Canada, Japan, and states in the European Space Agency (Esa).

These partners will have to support any extension for it to be implemented.

Their current commitments run to 2020, but many engineers believe the station could work safely until 2028.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25660857

I hope when they are done with it they attach a few ion engines to it and boost it up to a higher orbit where it can last a long time rather than falling to earth and burning up in the atmosphere.

If humanity gets its act together and survives as a high technology society the ISS could be a great museum piece someday.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. I've wondered if they could set it on a permanent loop between Earth and Mars.

Probably not suitable for it, but it's a cool idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler

[Locut0s]

2. Cool idea. But...

But I'd imagine that the amount of fuel required to lift it out of earth orbit and into such an orbit would be very prohibitive. It's true it's already in earth orbit but it's in a very low orbit and the difference between that and actually escaping earth is actually very large. At NASA I believe they'd talk about the mount of delta v they would need to achieve and it would require a huge amount of fuel. The ISS has a huge amount of inertia given it's large mass. But yeah it would be awesome if they could do it.

[hunter]

4. Maybe I'll run the numbers, maybe not.

But once the station is shut down and unoccupied, all that solar power could be diverted to propulsion.

The ISS might be an excellent testbed for larger long-life electric engine designs.

[Locut0s]

3. Agreed that would be neat. However...

I also hope they don't pour too much more money into it either. The ISS has very little scientific value, it's much more a political statement. So much more real research could be done with that money. I for one would love to see a massive increase in robotic space exploration funding. There's really no reason to send humans anywhere right now except for the emotional and political gains. I don't deny the emotional side of it though. I'd love to see man walk on mars in my life time. But I don't have any illusions that it would be money inefficiently spent from a science return perspective.