Ackart

That’s a lot of fox

  • He/Him

adorablesergal
@adorablesergal

My entire life, the International Space Station has been a Thing. It started out as a vision of the future of human spaceflight: Space Station Alpha! Vast and luxurious compared to Skylab or Mir! Look at the size of its PV arrays! Think of the science that will be done! Look at these gorgeous space paintings with shuttles docking like it's your average airport terminal!

Was a bit worrying in the early '90s, but by '98 the first module was going up. All throughout the '00s I looked forward to another piece of the puzzle being added. And Science was most definitely done!

It's so normal to think about having a permanently habited presence in space, albeit in low Earth orbit, sure, but it was more than just a quick two-week stint the shuttles would do. Mir set some endurance records, but it eventually said hello to the South Pacific. The ISS was it.

But by 2030, it will also go into The Drink. I guess the expectation is we will have Moon bases by then. I had faith in that in 2010; now I'm not so sure.

If SpaceX flops the Lunar contract, NASA's only option at off world human habitation will be Gateway, the planned way station between the Lunar surface and space, and that's not meant to be a permanently crewed spacecraft. I feel like this is a real risk, that ironically in the end it turned out that COTS opened another spaceflight dark age like what happened when Apollo ended, and NASA sorta coasted aimlessly in LEO while trying to get the shuttle online.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @adorablesergal's post:

I mean, I share your crushing disappointment but I’m also not remotely surprised by this outcome. The ISS was lucky in that it succeeded in spite of the political climate that increasingly saw spaceflight as a negative activity because it didn’t turn a profit, and that political climate has dominated NASA’s agenda for the past forty-odd years. It’s why bad suppliers continued to get contracts despite mounting failures and costs, and why missions were constantly scaled back to “hobbyist” ambitions with rovers and probes instead of manned missions; a few neat photos, a few interesting experiments, and some mainstream press coverage frequently felt like the goal of a mission - the actual science was just icing on the cake.

Which is tragic, because it’s not NASA’s fault. The agency has continuously stepped up with grand ambitions to go to celestial bodies, try bold new technologies, do amazing new experiments, to expand our species’ reach beyond the limits of our own planet. It’s just always been sidelined by efforts in Congress to funnel more money into the Senate Launch System no matter what, or to curtail “boondoggle” mission objectives because they don’t make money, or simply to give money to preferred suppliers so they can get re-elected with the promise of “next term, I can get you what you want, super seriously”.

It’s infuriating and tragic in equal measure. Almost half a century of potential, squandered by those tasked with custodianship over an agency whose singular goal is to keep going further.

I don't think the ISS is geting retired in 2030. i think there's slightly too much political inertia. It's how it's continued even as its two largest members are on opposite sides of a fucking war.

Everything in NASA is a political entity, and we don't get the ISS without the US State Department scrambling in the post-USSR-collapse world to get american industry to prop up post-Soviet industry for fear its talent will sell their knowledge and equipment to the highest bidder (ie, iran, north korea, china, y'know, US adversary of the week) because there's no soviet OR russian funding for them anymore.

The people who howl about a "senate launch system" (a term that should say on Reddit with all the people screaming that Starliner needs a rescue mission like monday morning quarterbacks shouting at the ref) fundamentally do not understand how this whole shebang works. We don't have the ISS without political motivators to chop off half of Reagan's lofty, vain Freedom station proposal and merge it with the built and unflown parts of a Soviet Mir-2 as an inherently political move to try and entrap the newly-broken-up parts of the USSR in some soft power. And also try and cut the price tag down so the fed would actually pay for it during the clinton years, when Goldin's "Faster, Better, Cheaper" took hold at the agency.

And even though the political factors that led to the ISS are increasingly from another time (we're at war with them now), there's still a lot of political capital tied up in projecting soft power through the ISS that i don't think even the meager amount of international collaboration on Artemis and Gateway (or these "Artemis Accords") will be able to replace.

I do think neoliberalism and austerity politics are a massive fucking danger to our space program, the "commercial space revolution" is a "we're privatizing british rail again" but with enough licking of boot to make people believe it's a good idea even as our spaceflight capability grows more vulnerable as we start treating capability we should inherently strive to have as something that can be "purchased as a service from the market" (that we prop up but don't control)

I'm worried the ISS will never be replaced, and there will be no moon base, and this is the decline. and in a hundred years the world will be awestruck reading about things they'll never be able to do again.

But also I'm chronically depressed and that means I think some very irrationally pessimistic things sometimes, so who knows.

I feel that. It's not like there aren't things to be depressed about. About all I can offer is the idea of "let this radicalize you", which everyone will take to heart in their own way, and that means someones out there will be absolutely furious at the prospect of a dark space age, and do everything within their power to stop that future from coming to pass :eggbug: