Not trying to argue with you, but I was under the assumption that there were at least 3 different, independently activated oxygen generation systems on the ISS (on different modules), some meant as backups. Is that incorrect?
Either way, I understand the reservation and you are probably right. I am still not 100% that it is so impossible though. The idea of expanding the ISS with Bigelow modules is certainly not new. I have seen it before.
1. -It has been stated that a cygnus pressurised module can be fitted to stay connected to a station as a parasitic module with minor tubing aditions. A station that will utilize such a method could grow bigger with every cargo ship coming.2. -The second stage of the falcon does most of the way up only to be turned back again. Can it be used as a module or as propultion for a station? Wet launch? That may seem like too much, but then again it was the idea for skylab. SpaceIslandGroup took that idea to extreme and might have had a station working by now if the shutle program didn't tragicly stoped.
-It has been stated that a cygnus pressurised module can be fitted to stay connected to a station as a parasitic module with minor tubing aditions. A station that will utilize such a method could grow bigger with every cargo ship coming.
-A hard shell station module is more robust than an inflatable one. Maybe that the good old fasion modules are just better.
RS systems are separate from the USOS systems. I was only talking about the USOS hosting a module. The USOS ECLSS system is integrated and uses the OGS for O2.
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?
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.
Microgravity research.
Where would these additional Cygnus modules attach to?
I know that Bigelow argue that the wall thickness and meteorite shielding is better, but can it suport equipment? Can you hang a picture on the wall?
Can you hang a picture on the wall?
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/22/2014 04:12 pmA 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.That doesn't work. One vehicle, two stations leaves one station with the crew stranded on it and without an emergency escape vehicle in the event it becomes necessary.
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.
The price of the flight from the ground to the commercial station is totally off topic for this thread.
I like what Jon had to say about free flyers. Done properly, there shouldn't be much need for a crew member to don a spacesuit and go outside. Think of the UAV fliers. They sit in a comfortable flight station and fly their aircraft from half way around the world. There's no reason we can't do that same kind of thing with a properly designed free flyer for telerobotic operations all around and on the station exterior. Commercial station designers ought to include 1 or 2 such stations in their designs. ISS would have greatly benefited from such operations. It's still "eyes and hands on the mission", just from inside the station instead of inside a spacesuit outside the station. If surgeons can perform delicate telerobotic operations on a person from thousands of miles away using properly designed "hands" and tools, there's no reason we couldn't do the same kind of delicate missions telerobotically, but from inside the station, instead of outside.
I had an idea about a similar technology. I thought about doing a standardized SEP tug. And have a lot of them, like ten or even a dozen. When attached to the station, they would supply power and attitude control. If you design an extension to the CBM, you could do some very dumb cargo modules. Imagine something like the Cygnus but without the bus. And have the upper stage supply some enhanced battery power and let the SEP tugs actually rendevouz with the US, capture the cargo, supply it with power, and take it and berth it with the station. This way, you would be constantly reusing the bus and the cargo compartment could be a
How many experiments are there on the ISS that don't need human interaction of some sort ?
How many experiments are there on the ISS that don't need human interaction of some sort ?I was thinking about how you could eliminate the unpacking of the cargo modules by just leaving those experiments in a PCM module that docked with the station. But then, what is the purpose of docking with the station anyway, if everything can be handled remotely from the ground anyway. Why dock the Cygnus PCM module, if it can be a standalone lab module all by itself ? You could outfit the PCM or that other vendor's module with racks and let it go as a complete free flier to perform science missions in LEO. No permanent station required. Just fill up the available rack space on the spacecraft, and let it fly for a year. If you want your experiment back, get it from the vehicle with a heat shield. These independent free-fliers might actually make sense. Fees would be based on how much power and rack space each experiment would need. Of course, you would probably need a company like Nanoracks (not necessarily Nanoracks) to handle selling the available space to make sure it gets launched at a decent percentage of capacity.