12
US Congress postpones decommissioning of ISS from 2030 to 2032, and directs NASA to build a permanent Moon base (www.theregister.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/space@lemmy.ml
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2026 has been approved, and alongside a directive for NASA to establish a permanent Moon base, the legislation includes language extending the International Space Station to 2032.

The ISS project was set to end in 2030. In 2024, NASA awarded a contract to Elon Musk's SpaceX to build a tug to de-orbit the outpost by 2030, assuming it lasts that long. By then the complex's first module will have been in orbit for more than 30 years, and cracks have plagued the structure alongside hardware failures as the laboratory ages. One space agency insider observed that "it's on its last legs."

Then again, in a 2024 interview with The Register, ESA astronaut Andreas Mogensen said of the ISS: "I wouldn't be surprised if we extended it a few years."

NASA is to begin soliciting proposals for two commercial space stations immediately (Axiom Space and Vast spring to mind), but, mindful of a potential gap, lawmakers have also directed the agency to keep the ISS running for a few more years – certainly until at least one commercial station is launched and capable of taking over ISS operations.

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

Sponsored by Ted Cruz. What's the catch?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • 8 comments in c/space@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    ISS feels like a ticking time bomb with leaks and old hardware. It's a big failure of NASA leadership to not advance the replacements sooner. I'm also sure that Boeing keeps lobbying for ISS extensions to keep their $1 billion a year to fly it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    With no funding mind you. We don't pay you to get it done. We just tell you to get it done.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does discussion of the ISS's age always end up as an all-or-nothing debate? It's modular so can't we treat it like a Ship of Theseus and replace the modules one at a time?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    There is a ton of external wiring and plumbing connecting modules, so it isn't as easy as undocking one. Think about all the power and cooling connections that have to route to the truss, plus all the data lines between modules. The US segment and Russian segment are inextricably linked with all those external connections, and potentially even cold welded together at the mechanical interface.

    The maintenance is piling up on old parts. One of the selling points of new stations is to dramatically reduce the part count. Imagine stocking dozens of types of fans, fasteners, pipe fittings, connectors, etc for a bunch of different heritage modules.

    Companies building new stations don't want the old stuff. NASA asked them. Even cargo modules, like Leonardo, which is basically a can, aren't desirable. At some point (idk if this is still true) Axiom was going to get the Raffaello cargo module out of storage on the ground to convert and reuse it, but that's all I'm aware of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks, that makes sense

    There is a ton of external wiring and plumbing connecting modules, so it isn't as easy as undocking one. Think about all the power and cooling connections that have to route to the truss, plus all the data lines between modules. The US segment and Russian segment are inextricably linked with all those external connections, and potentially even cold welded together at the mechanical interface.

    So was the purpose of the modularity only to allow for it to be built piecemeal or is this congealing of the modules due to one-off repairs that accrued over time?

    I remember seeing a concept for a Boeing space station that used inflatable modules and I thought at the time it seemed kinda like a evolution of the ISS's modular concept. But your explanation make me wonder if a modular space station even makes sense (outside of the initial building phase)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    They used the biggest modules they could fit in a Shuttle. Or fit in a rocket fairing if they could fly themselves. That meant being stuck with 4.5m wide cans. The old Salyut stations were single modules, then MIR was a big modular one to get more space, crew, power, equipment, etc, and ISS is the evolution of that idea.

    Skylab was a huge volume because they used a Saturn upper stage. Some new stations will have bigger single modules, like Orbital Reef and Voyager, because of the bigger fairing sizes on Starship and New Glenn. Inflatables are a little annoying to build out inside and they still need some dev work, so a lot of the next gen stations are big cans that might have some inflatable modules on the sides.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    It's kinda surreal from a Non American Point of view seeing congress beginning to be serious about building a moon base

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Moon base. No healthcare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    6 comments in c/space@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 12 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The title isn’t correct. It’s not actually that NASA wants these things (though actually I’m sure they do) but instead congress is directing them to do these things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    This is amazing and all, but I don't want this now. I don't want this under the current administration who will find every way to siphon funds, muck it up, and somehow invade someone over it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    The cronyism feels unavoidable right now, but it doesn't seem like the new stations are as grifty as a lot of other programs across the government. Axiom, Vast, Voyager, and Blue have all been working on their concepts, and even some fabrication, since before this administration, and they aren't just random new shell corps with like Don Jr as CEO. You could argue that Axiom has a ton of connections to JSC and Blue has some powerful lobbying, but that's very different from the scams going on in other agencies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Let me tell you what that really means. Congress had pockets filled with contractor cash and passed bill. Contractor makes a shady agreement with someone at the top of the program making major decisions at NASA who immediately retires afterwards, that disables the agency's ability to perform at any useful capacity. The reason to outsiders will be based on some bullshit about intellectual property and data rights, but will make collaboration essentially impossible, and will be the cause of failure if it happens. It's almost like I've seen this too many times.

    Sometimes if only one contractor is involved, it's not too bad. Get several primes together and now everyone is screwed because everything is a secret.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    They want a lot of things. They won't get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •