Robyn Gatens' presentation on the ISS extension:https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nacjan2022_iss_final.pdf
McAlister said that by retiring the ISS, it should save NASA about $1.5 billion annually. “And in this case, we don’t need any increased appropriations. We’re just using our money smarter,” McAlister said. “And that is going to be a key enabler for our Artemis missions going forward as well as freeing up the personnel resources.”In response to a question from one of the committee members, McAlister said that NASA’s obligation of running the ISS is about $3.5 billion each year. He noted that half a billion of that are activities that NASA will want to continue to do in LEO with or without the Space Station and it will cost about $1 billion to purchase the services they need from a commercial LEO destination.
There is a lot of discussion in this thread of Starship as a crew option but I think it's more interesting to consider using it as a plain-old LEO launcher.All the competitors are presumably designing to fit inside inside the mass and volume capabilities of current launchers but Starship promises a huge increase. Space stations that takes full advantage of Starship will greatly outperform those that don't so nobody can afford to ignore this possibility.This program has a huge amount of potential: if a market can be established for multiple crewed habitat providers then this will be extremely relevant for bases on Moon and Mars.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 01/23/2022 01:12 pmThere is a lot of discussion in this thread of Starship as a crew option but I think it's more interesting to consider using it as a plain-old LEO launcher.All the competitors are presumably designing to fit inside inside the mass and volume capabilities of current launchers but Starship promises a huge increase. Space stations that takes full advantage of Starship will greatly outperform those that don't so nobody can afford to ignore this possibility.This program has a huge amount of potential: if a market can be established for multiple crewed habitat providers then this will be extremely relevant for bases on Moon and Mars.The Starship cargo version will fly long before the crew version. Among other reasons, the plan is to use the cargo version to gain lots of experience with launch, re-entry, and landing before flying the crewed version. Further, SpaceX has planned for large launches of Starlink payloads on Starship instead of F9.The question you did not ask: why have a specialized "Commercial LEO Destination" at all? Starship is huge. Just launch a Starship and leave it in LEO as a space station. With no modifications, a crewed Starship has about the same pressurized living volume as ISS. With modifications, the propellant tanks can be converted to more pressurized volume, approximately tripling the volume.Since Starship is bigger than most of the proposed stations, why would a crew want to transfer from the big Starship into the smaller station at all? just go to LEO in Starship and stay there for the duration of the mission. Starship can accommodate up to 100 crew for transit to Mars. Outfitting a Starship for a six-month LEO science expedition for 20 crew would allow for plenty of room for all experiments. ISS has never had more than nine crew aboard at any one time.
The problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?
Quote from: RonM on 01/23/2022 06:43 pmThe problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?The ultimate purpose of Starship is to carry large crews on months-long voyages to Mars. So SpaceX has to develop long duration power and life support as a matter of course.
Quote from: punder on 01/23/2022 07:14 pmQuote from: RonM on 01/23/2022 06:43 pmThe problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?The ultimate purpose of Starship is to carry large crews on months-long voyages to Mars. So SpaceX has to develop long duration power and life support as a matter of course.Some experiments, such as AMS, ASIM, and long-term exposure platforms, are operated for several years. A dedicated space station allowing relatively cheap access to orbit for experiments is a valuable resource. Flying Starship is good for short-term experiments such as six months to a year but that leaves out some options.Starship is not the answer to everything.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/23/2022 06:04 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 01/23/2022 01:12 pmThere is a lot of discussion in this thread of Starship as a crew option but I think it's more interesting to consider using it as a plain-old LEO launcher.All the competitors are presumably designing to fit inside inside the mass and volume capabilities of current launchers but Starship promises a huge increase. Space stations that takes full advantage of Starship will greatly outperform those that don't so nobody can afford to ignore this possibility.This program has a huge amount of potential: if a market can be established for multiple crewed habitat providers then this will be extremely relevant for bases on Moon and Mars.The Starship cargo version will fly long before the crew version. Among other reasons, the plan is to use the cargo version to gain lots of experience with launch, re-entry, and landing before flying the crewed version. Further, SpaceX has planned for large launches of Starlink payloads on Starship instead of F9.The question you did not ask: why have a specialized "Commercial LEO Destination" at all? Starship is huge. Just launch a Starship and leave it in LEO as a space station. With no modifications, a crewed Starship has about the same pressurized living volume as ISS. With modifications, the propellant tanks can be converted to more pressurized volume, approximately tripling the volume.Since Starship is bigger than most of the proposed stations, why would a crew want to transfer from the big Starship into the smaller station at all? just go to LEO in Starship and stay there for the duration of the mission. Starship can accommodate up to 100 crew for transit to Mars. Outfitting a Starship for a six-month LEO science expedition for 20 crew would allow for plenty of room for all experiments. ISS has never had more than nine crew aboard at any one time.The problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?
*snip*ISS has never had more than nine crew aboard at any one time.
It seems self-evident that a space station assembled using Starship will be much more capable than using starship itself as a space station. This really applies to all vehicles, modular space stations are extremely powerful.And if we're assuming that Starship can launch passengers into LEO then this will greatly reduce prices and expand demand for habitable volume. Solid demand already exists for Dragon and suborbital vehicles like New Shepard; what would happen if orbital flight becomes available at suborbital prices?There is a huge opportunity here.
... How big a station do you want? If bigger than a single Starship with propellant tanks converted to pressurized space, then hook two or more of them together. This is a modular station built from modified Starships as modules....
...The claim that docking together starships is the best way to a space station is very dubious: the wet workshop idea has been around for a very long time but never put into practice: everybody went for special-purpose habitat modules instead. The current LEO destination proposals are small but this is because they can't yet rely on Starship as a launcher.
