this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
49 points (96.2% liked)

Spaceflight

677 readers
36 users here now

Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.

All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).

Other related space communities:

Related meme community:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Much like how an old house cannot be kept up to date by making additions and rennovations for ever

FYI, houses do not work that way. They can, in fact, last forever as long as you keep up with the maintenance. The main reason they don't is that people either abandon them or want to build something else in their place (i.e. they become functionally obsolete).

Now, if you want to argue that the ISS is functionally obsolete, I could see your point... but then again, it's hard to argue that a thing is obsolete when nothing exists to replace it. Even if the engineers aren't thrilled about trying to interface new modules with the decades-old stuff, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to throw away the entire existing thing and start over from scratch.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well, houses can be stripped down to a state where they can't support their primary function while they are renovated. Space stations are harder to handle in that way.

[–] grue 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay, but if we're intending to have a permanent presence in space, it's unreasonable in the long run to have to keep throwing stations out completely and launching new ones from scratch every few decades. We're going to have to figure out how to do "space renovations" sooner or later. Why not try now?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

The easiest way to do that in the long term will likely be to have several space stations in orbit at a time so you can renovate one while using the others for habitation for the people who do that work.

[–] MotoAsh 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Depends. Not even many stone buildings last many centuries. Wooden structures tend to be much less, and humanity has seen many stone structures slowly turn uninhabitable.

Besides, in space, there is much, MUCH more space. There is only a little need to fight over orbital space, let alone literal adjacent space. We don't need to rennovate the ISS to reclaim ideal space.

Whether or not you know about them, there are also several plans ongoing for replacing the ISS, too, so your inability to grasp this is... kinda' weird.

[–] grue 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Besides, in space, there is much, MUCH more space. There is only a little need to fight over orbital space, let alone literal adjacent space. We don’t need to rennovate the ISS to reclaim ideal space.

What? Room inside a space station is incredibly expensive because we have to design, build and launch it!

Whether or not you know about them, there are also several plans ongoing for replacing the ISS, too, so your inability to grasp this is… kinda’ weird.

Key word: "plans." I.e., things that aren't actually built yet and in fact might not ever get built.

Throwing out the ISS before we have at least part of a replacement in orbit is an excellent way to risk failing to have a space station completely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Throwing out the ISS before we have at least part of a replacement in orbit is an excellent way to risk failing to have a space station completely.

I agree. We are not doing that though. Haven-1 is scheduled to launch NET 2025, the Axiom orbital segment is NET 2026, Orbital Reef is targeting 2027, and Starlab is targeting 2028. Even if these schedules slip a couple years, they would still be ready in time for the ISS deorbit in (or after) 2030.