Is the ISS an Interplanetary Spaceship Waiting to be Launched?

The International Space Station, the ISS to most of us, has often been called the most expensive thing ever to be built. At $156 billion so far, with probably more to come later on, the ISS doesn’t seem to be doing a whole lot. The pinnacle of international cooperation so far, one would imagine that with a great big space station in orbit, we could at least be doing something nifty with it rather than just inhabiting it with two people.

That is why Michael Benson, author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes” and frequent Washington Post columnist, has recently postulated that we should use the ISS as an interplanetary vehicle.

I won’t give you the stations rundown; Wikipedia has that for you if you haven’t already heard it a million times. But needless to say, Benson’s idea of sending her off on an interplanetary journey to Mars makes a lot of sense on the surface.

Benson spends much of his article entitled ‘It's All Decked Out. Give It Somewhere to Go.’ on the Washington Post website this Sunday countering foreseeable arguments with his plan, such as the argument that the new Constellation program is already prepped to have interplanetary goals; that the ISS needs to be resupplied too often; the amount of propellant needed to get the ISS anywhere. But as Benson write, “there are good answers to all these objections.”

For example, the ISS is already in low-Earth orbit, so any arguments regarding propellant are already severely diminished. In addition, Benson acknowledges that the new Constellation Ares boosters and Orion capsules can easily be adapted to a scenario in which the ISS becomes a central hub of activity for any mission. Add to that the fact that the Ares V rockets will be able to send stuff to the ISS to make it truly interplanetary safe, and you have the beginnings of a plan.

According to Benson the critics to his theory would continue their attack, and say that the ISS still needs a propulsion drive to get it places. Benson agrees, and points to work done by the US and Japanese space programs on ion-drive systems. According to Benson, both countries have conducted successful tests on such a system, and considering that the ISS is already in space, the more methodical and long burning acceleration (and subsequent deceleration) would be perfect for the ISS.

He does run in to trouble when trying to find a solution for a lander to travel from the ISS to a planetary surface. Landers are well behind in the developmental scheme of things when compared to the Ares boosters, but Benson does believe that with enough foresight, landers could be developed that would be perfect for his plan.

As for the overall cost of such an endeavor? Without actually addressing the future costs, Benson points to making the ISS fiscally useful, based on how much we’ve already spent on the ISS.

Totally aware of the unlikelihood of this happening, Benson’s idea should at least spark some thought. For those of us not necessarily fully ingrained in NASA or space culture, it seems like a good idea, and one might hope for seeing in our lifetime the ISS making a grand journey to Mars.

Posted by Josh Hill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html

Comments

[surf]

You've a nicely done site with lots of effort and good updates. I would like to welcome you to submit your stories to www.surfurls.com and get that extra one way traffic to your site.

[nepharous]

This is a great idea. Considering this machine cost $156 Billion and does very little lets turn it into our first starship. If we can blow $ 2 trillion in Iraq on death and mayhem, the very least we can do is to spend a little on the long term survival of Humanity.

[Brent]

Does the ISS have proper shielding from cosmic rays? Being in low Earth orbit means that the Earth is shielding everyone on board. Given the cost of sending anything into space and the weight of shielding, I'm guessing the ISS is not properly shielded for space travel, meaning anyone on board would be dead given enough time.

[Helder - Pt]

They could use the Hubble first to try this plan, instead of drop it in the ocean.

[Helder - Pt]

They could use the Hubble first to try this plan, instead of drop it in the ocean.

[Helder - Pt]

They could use the Hubble first to try this plan, instead of drop it in the ocean.

[knoxvilledaniel]

I don't think that anybody is taking into account whether or not the ISS could stand the stress of being maneuvered out of its orbit into interplanetary space - say, to Mars - without being shaken to pieces & developing stress fractures, not to mention micrometeor impacts or impacts with larger objects. Perhaps it could be done, but not just yet. & unless we develop reusable, automated spacecrafts for shuttling supplies, extra oxygen, water & food, any crew on board an ISS - turned - spacecraft would be living on BORROWED TIME.
A + for wishful thinking, C or D - for actually designing the thing in advance to be used as a spacecraft.

[jer35mx]

In other site, was sugested that the shuttles should be rented or sold to other country, reading this, well, why not to put one in orbit as a secondary place to get in case of emergency ,je, I read a book wehere a person space mover flied from one orbit to other from a station to other station; and in case to get a new propellant to use it as a planetary space ship, I read too in somewhere the idea to unite the propellant tanks of the shuttles to make an space hotel.