1. Yes, there were many lessons learned wrt ISS construction. The actual lesson learned was don't make your components so that they can only be launched/serviced by one vehicle.2. ISS construction did not take too long because of small modules but because of shuttle standdowns and delayed hardware. Larger modules do not provide any extra benefit. 3. Larger open volume is just wasted volume.
Is there any approximation of a cost breakdown for the ISS, split between launch costs, module construction, costs accrued due to waiting on launcher delays, and so forth? What about for Skylab and Mir?
...And one thing that you're missing is that the ISS has gone through a lot of growing pains... The incremental multi-launch approach means that there's time to fix these problems one by one, rather than having to deal with them all at once.
The second point I reluctantly concede (not that I am opposed to being wrong, I just have trouble accepting that stretching the construction time of a project out to make it easier to find all of the engineering failures is a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'.)...
Quote from: hydra9 on 06/18/2010 03:02 am1. ISS? Been there, done that! Decommission it after 2015 so that NASA can focus on beyond LEO missions...2. ...Bigelow has yet to have even a single man in any of their stations...
1. ISS? Been there, done that! Decommission it after 2015 so that NASA can focus on beyond LEO missions...
One of the large disadvantages of a monolithic design...
In defense of Shuttle and ISS... this "pickup truck" technique obviated the need for autonomous rendezvous and docking (ARAD) capability...
...[Jim's] argument is not based on whether or not we should use larger modules, it’s based on the fact that we shouldn’t use large modules because currently we don’t have a vehicle to do so. And because we currently don’t have that vehicle [he's] saying we should never use larger modules and acting as if it’s some law of nature. But the argument really is if we did have a HLV would it be cheaper to launch larger modules versus smaller ones....
...But we've already known for decades that a microgravity environment is deleterious to human health. Time to move on!
One of the problems with heavy lift is what do you do after you have put up your space station?...
So what is the best module size these days?
3. I think one of the things needed is more volume. If we're ever going to be building "motherships" and "colonies", we need volume. I guess it's still future games, tho.
Quote from: Jim on 06/18/2010 03:12 amQuote from: hydra9 on 06/18/2010 03:02 amISS? Been there, done that! Decommission it after 2015 so that NASA can focus on beyond LEO missions. Marcel F. WilliamsQuit your childlike drive by postings. Once again, you show you have no credibility. Go post some where else. But then again you will get the same response.Moon? Been there, done that!Others. just ignore the crazy man behind curtainSorry Jim. But I don't think whining is a very rational response. If you disagree with someone then you would try to articulate your disagreement in a rational manner.
Quote from: hydra9 on 06/18/2010 03:02 amISS? Been there, done that! Decommission it after 2015 so that NASA can focus on beyond LEO missions. Marcel F. WilliamsQuit your childlike drive by postings. Once again, you show you have no credibility. Go post some where else. But then again you will get the same response.Moon? Been there, done that!Others. just ignore the crazy man behind curtain
ISS? Been there, done that! Decommission it after 2015 so that NASA can focus on beyond LEO missions. Marcel F. Williams
But with NASA’s intention to build a new HLV and if they were to decided to build another space station it might be more economical to launch several large modules than for them all to be small.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amPossible work for HLV :-Developing a new unprofitable HLV does not [make sense].
Possible work for HLV :-
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amPossible work for HLV :-All of these can be done without an HLV or replaced by something that can. If we already had a profitable HLV, or if we had a profitable smaller launch vehicle with a triple core HLV variant (say EELV Phase 1 or Atlas Phase 2), then it might make sense to use it for such things. Developing a new unprofitable HLV does not.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/18/2010 01:51 pmSo what is the best module size these days?Glancing at this thread, I think Jim could have worded it better. The idea seems to me that the economy of scale of larger pieces (by volume) is less important than sizing the pieces so that they can fit on multiple launch vehicles. So, given the ISS, it'd have been better to size the pieces at a fairing size of, say, 4 meters, so that they could be launched not just on the Shuttle, but also other vehicles such as Titan IV, Proton, Ariane 5, or EELVs. It also means modifying the construction program so you don't need a particular vehicle present in order to assemble the station.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/18/2010 01:51 pm3. I think one of the things needed is more volume. If we're ever going to be building "motherships" and "colonies", we need volume. I guess it's still future games, tho.anyway I don't think this debate can be settled without hard numbers and a detailed study (which I'll assume don't exist)
Quote from: manboy on 06/18/2010 04:37 amBut with NASA’s intention to build a new HLV and if they were to decided to build another space station it might be more economical to launch several large modules than for them all to be small."might be" is not valid argument. There are more costs than just launching large modules. There has to be facilities to build them and test them on the ground.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 06/18/2010 08:55 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amPossible work for HLV :-Developing a new unprofitable HLV does not [make sense].Well that's what the president has mandated.Quote from: mmeijeri on 06/18/2010 08:55 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amPossible work for HLV :-All of these can be done without an HLV or replaced by something that can. If we already had a profitable HLV, or if we had a profitable smaller launch vehicle with a triple core HLV variant (say EELV Phase 1 or Atlas Phase 2), then it might make sense to use it for such things. Developing a new unprofitable HLV does not.But it requires a crazy amount of launches. The Augustine Report concluded it would take three Ares Vs and one Ares I for a Mars mission, how many launches do you think would be required without a HLV?
Well that's what the president has mandated.
But it requires a crazy amount of launches. The Augustine Report concluded it would take three Ares Vs and one Ares I for a Mars mission, how many launches do you think would be required without a HLV?
Quote from: manboy on 06/18/2010 06:51 pmWell that's what the president has mandated.Not quite. Five years from now he could say let's build EELV Phase 1 as the HLV and still be true to his word. But in any event, I don't have to agree with Obama...Quote from: mmeijeri on 06/18/2010 08:55 amBut it requires a crazy amount of launches. The Augustine Report concluded it would take three Ares Vs and one Ares I for a Mars mission, how many launches do you think would be required without a HLV?The problem with HLV and Mars is that it would take a crazy amount of dollars... As Rand Simberg puts it so succinctly: we need cheap lift more than we need heavy lift. And a reduction in costs by one or even two orders of magnitude is believed to be technically possible.But this is getting away from the current myth and Andrew's list of items. Most of those could easily be done with EELVs without needing unreasonable numbers of launches.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 06/18/2010 05:13 amOne of the problems with heavy lift is what do you do after you have put up your space station?Possible work for HLV :-LEO spacestationEML spacestationlarge LEO propellant depotlarge EML propellant depotMars Transfer VehicleLarge SEP tugMoon BasePhobos BaseMars Baselarge telescopemining equipmentRepeated - coach for tourists and/or space minersAnd where are you going to get all the money for those payloads? You've already spent billions on your HLV, you probably don't have a lot of $$$ lying around for space stations, moon bases, mars bases, telescopes, etc.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 06/18/2010 05:13 amOne of the problems with heavy lift is what do you do after you have put up your space station?Possible work for HLV :-LEO spacestationEML spacestationlarge LEO propellant depotlarge EML propellant depotMars Transfer VehicleLarge SEP tugMoon BasePhobos BaseMars Baselarge telescopemining equipmentRepeated - coach for tourists and/or space miners
One of the problems with heavy lift is what do you do after you have put up your space station?
Quote from: Rabidpanda on 06/18/2010 05:58 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 06/18/2010 05:13 amOne of the problems with heavy lift is what do you do after you have put up your space station?Possible work for HLV :-LEO spacestationEML spacestationlarge LEO propellant depotlarge EML propellant depotMars Transfer VehicleLarge SEP tugMoon BasePhobos BaseMars Baselarge telescopemining equipmentRepeated - coach for tourists and/or space minersAnd where are you going to get all the money for those payloads? You've already spent billions on your HLV, you probably don't have a lot of $$$ lying around for space stations, moon bases, mars bases, telescopes, etc.An alternative may of wording the questions is:Will NASA get the money to go to Mars?Big rockets vs. medium sized rockets - which is cheaper? Which is quicker?Also can all the hardware be developed on a budget of $2 - $3 billion a year? Possibly one or two machines at a time.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 09:08 pmQuote from: Rabidpanda on 06/18/2010 05:58 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2010 05:53 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 06/18/2010 05:13 amOne of the problems with heavy lift is what do you do after you have put up your space station?Possible work for HLV :-LEO spacestationEML spacestationlarge LEO propellant depotlarge EML propellant depotMars Transfer VehicleLarge SEP tugMoon BasePhobos BaseMars Baselarge telescopemining equipmentRepeated - coach for tourists and/or space minersAnd where are you going to get all the money for those payloads? You've already spent billions on your HLV, you probably don't have a lot of $$$ lying around for space stations, moon bases, mars bases, telescopes, etc.An alternative may of wording the questions is:Will NASA get the money to go to Mars?Big rockets vs. medium sized rockets - which is cheaper? Which is quicker?Also can all the hardware be developed on a budget of $2 - $3 billion a year? Possibly one or two machines at a time.The quicker cheaper method is using what is existing and not building a dedicated HLV. If you must build a HLV then build one that shares facilities with another currently operating rocket. Use funds for spacecraft and spacecraft only. At current costs I really don’t see BEO spaceflight as being something as affordable as LEO spaceflight. I think we are going to be doing lunar and\or Martian sorties first then perhaps going to a lunar base. I think at best we are talking about one-two BEO flights a year and thus really not enough to justify having its own dedicated launcher. I think as long as a mission can be done in 4 flights that are not too unreasonable. When you tie exploration in with an HLV you risk the HLV eating your budget, you risk loss of the program with any loss or cancelation of the HLV and you are less able to take advantage of new technology. For instance if a new lower cost rocket is built you can move a 20-30ton payload to it, If your payload requires an HLV then you can only move to another HLV(and it is hard enough to fund one HLV).
All design work at the time that had been done on ST Freedom would have had to been scrapped