You guys are missing the fact that the ISS cannot last forever. From what I have seen there is still going to be demand for a space station from NASA. Not $100 billion dollars of demand, but still some demand. I think a commercial partnership between NASA and some commercial entity to build a commercial space station can definitely work. A space station with the same habitable volume as the ISS can be build with just a few of Bigelows BA-330 modules. NASA would serve as the primary customer, and would take up most of the space with their operations. The rest of the space station would then be rented out to various clients including other space agencies, space tourism companies like Space Adventures, and organizations looking to do research.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 01/22/2014 02:25 pmYou guys are missing the fact that the ISS cannot last forever. From what I have seen there is still going to be demand for a space station from NASA. Not $100 billion dollars of demand, but still some demand. I think a commercial partnership between NASA and some commercial entity to build a commercial space station can definitely work. A space station with the same habitable volume as the ISS can be build with just a few of Bigelows BA-330 modules. NASA would serve as the primary customer, and would take up most of the space with their operations. The rest of the space station would then be rented out to various clients including other space agencies, space tourism companies like Space Adventures, and organizations looking to do research. Can you elaborate on just what NASA's demand for a space station would be post-ISS? Isn't NASA already moving in the direction that utilisation activities in LEO should be commercially driven? Isn't the CASIS model now adopted for ISS a sign of future LEO activities?
A next door free flyer to ISS is an interesting option. The same crew transport could service both stations. Delivering 3 crew to the free-flyer and 4 to ISS. NASA could transport 7 astronauts for the price of 4, the current crew complement for crew missions to ISS. If NASA can save $.5B on crew and cargo transport costs by 2020 they could afford to rent 330m3 of yearly space on a next door free-flyer.
How about a commercial expansion to the ISS? Bigelow is going to do something like that as a small scale test with BEAM. I could imagine doing this on a much greater scale with BA modules when the time is right.
Ripe with complications. The module would essentially be parasitic to ISS. Because ISS is the vehicle and the module is just that, all standard rules, regulations and procedures would apply to that module as every other module that make up the ISS vehicle. Depending on what one wants to do with this "commercial station" that could make it prohibitive.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 01/22/2014 05:45 pmRipe with complications. The module would essentially be parasitic to ISS. Because ISS is the vehicle and the module is just that, all standard rules, regulations and procedures would apply to that module as every other module that make up the ISS vehicle. Depending on what one wants to do with this "commercial station" that could make it prohibitive. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the BA modules will come with their own power supply, life support and station keeping thrusters, might also be that Bigelow wanted to do an extra module for that. Either way, they should be able to function without being parasitic to the ISS, at least as far as possible while being attached to it.
I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the BA modules will come with their own power supply, life support and station keeping thrusters, might also be that Bigelow wanted to do an extra module for that. Either way, they should be able to function without being parasitic to the ISS, at least as far as possible while being attached to it.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/22/2014 06:06 pmI am not 100% sure, but I believe that the BA modules will come with their own power supply, life support and station keeping thrusters, might also be that Bigelow wanted to do an extra module for that. Either way, they should be able to function without being parasitic to the ISS, at least as far as possible while being attached to it.No, not either way. 1. It won't be function while attached to the ISS2. It would be parastic.And this is why they would be incapable with the ISS. 1. Where is the power "supply" going to come from? Solar arrays? Not feasible. There would be shadowing on the ISS and from the ISS. Same goes for radiators. 2. Life support? Can't have an independent system from the ISS, it must be integrated to ensure proper conditions3. Thrusters? Why would they be needed when part of the ISS?And the reason why another module added to the USOS is not feasible: No resources (power, cooling, etc) available to the another module. See what is being done with BEAM.
2. Ok, that is a good point! On the other hand there are currently several different systems on different ISS modules that contribute to the ECLS. So while I agree that these systems have to be synced, this might not be an insurmountable problem.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/22/2014 06:51 pm2. Ok, that is a good point! On the other hand there are currently several different systems on different ISS modules that contribute to the ECLS. So while I agree that these systems have to be synced, this might not be an insurmountable problem.They aren't "different", they are all part of the same integrated system. It is just distributed.