NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Station (ISS) => ISS Section => Topic started by: apace on 08/31/2011 02:28 pm
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
-
Well, the main reason is that it was built mostly by the space shuttle, so all of the modules didn't have to have their own propulsion, power, and other systems, allowing for more specialization.
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
A. Becuase it started as a US project, Space Station Freedom
b. Most of the modules are not Russian
c. MIR was limited in what it could do
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
A. Becuase it started as a US project, Space Station Freedom
b. Most of the modules are not Russian
c. MIR was limited in what it could do
In the beginning, was there any study if a space station could also be built without the extensive use of the shuttle or was this always a no go?
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
You mean why it is not assembled from a collection of modules that use solar power, Progress and Soyuz? Oh, wait....
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
A. Becuase it started as a US project, Space Station Freedom
b. Most of the modules are not Russian
c. MIR was limited in what it could do
Umm... c. You make it sound like ISS is limitless in what it can do...
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
You mean why it is not assembled from a collection of modules that use solar power, Progress and Soyuz? Oh, wait....
No. I ask if there was any study if a space station should be built with shuttle only, with a mix of shuttle and EELV, or with EELV only.
-
Umm... c. You make it sound like ISS is limitless in what it can do...
He means that ISS is far more capable than Mir for scientific research, in terms of electrical power, data downlink, vibration isolation, internal and external experiment accommodation sites, etc.
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
You mean why it is not assembled from a collection of modules that use solar power, Progress and Soyuz? Oh, wait....
No. I ask if there was any study if a space station should be built with shuttle only, with a mix of shuttle and EELV, or with EELV only.
It's kind of a poitless question. ISS is ISS because it was designed and built the way it was with a specific concept of operations centered around that.
One could have built a space station with shuttle only. It would not be ISS.
One could have built a space station with EELV rockets and other ancillary components. It would not be ISS.
One could have built a space station using a combination of any of the above. It would not be ISS.
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
You mean why it is not assembled from a collection of modules that use solar power, Progress and Soyuz? Oh, wait....
No. I ask if there was any study if a space station should be built with shuttle only, with a mix of shuttle and EELV, or with EELV only.
It's kind of a poitless question. ISS is ISS because it was designed and built the way it was with a specific concept of operations centered around that.
One could have built a space station with shuttle only. It would not be ISS.
One could have built a space station with EELV rockets and other ancillary components. It would not be ISS.
One could have built a space station using a combination of any of the above. It would not be ISS.
So, the ISS is made as it was made because we had the Shuttle and there was no choice to build-up a station without the use of the Shuttle.
-
I think a better question would be what capabilities are built into ISS that Mir did not have. Principally, this would be science racks and adequate power for all systems.
-
No. I ask if there was any study if a space station should be built with shuttle only, with a mix of shuttle and EELV, or with EELV only.
Some research show you that a lot of the mass of the big russian modules goes to non-science stuff that is not needed after it has docked with station. Take MLM for example, it will have engines, propellant tanks and guidance that will take up mass and space that could have been used for science. Columbus, Destiny and Kibo are 100% science based since they where carried up by shuttle. So that is a way more effective way in building a station.
Sure you could have developed a tug and launched in EELV but what was the point when shuttle existed?
-
Can I find somewehere more information why ISS is built like it is today and not more like Mir?
You mean why it is not assembled from a collection of modules that use solar power, Progress and Soyuz? Oh, wait....
No. I ask if there was any study if a space station should be built with shuttle only, with a mix of shuttle and EELV, or with EELV only.
It's kind of a poitless question. ISS is ISS because it was designed and built the way it was with a specific concept of operations centered around that.
One could have built a space station with shuttle only. It would not be ISS.
One could have built a space station with EELV rockets and other ancillary components. It would not be ISS.
One could have built a space station using a combination of any of the above. It would not be ISS.
So, the ISS is made as it was made because we had the Shuttle and there was no choice to build-up a station without the use of the Shuttle.
Well I'm sure there was a "choice" somewhere along the line. Why wouldn't anyone use the vast capabilities of the shuttle? ISS is much better for it.
-
Well I'm sure there was a "choice" somewhere along the line. Why wouldn't anyone use the vast capabilities of the shuttle? ISS is much better for it.
If you cannot use the Shuttle for other missions, yes of course. But back to my question about the why of ISS structure and the advantage over a station type like Mir.
What I understand the ISS has the following advantage:
- Special purpose modules without overhead (propulsion)
- Centralized energy management
- trust with external points to get additional experiments attached
Any more?
-
Well I'm sure there was a "choice" somewhere along the line. Why wouldn't anyone use the vast capabilities of the shuttle? ISS is much better for it.
If you cannot use the Shuttle for other missions, yes of course. But back to my question about the why of ISS structure and the advantage over a station type like Mir.
What I understand the ISS has the following advantage:
- Special purpose modules without overhead (propulsion)
- Centralized energy management
- trust with external points to get additional experiments attached
Any more?
Let's see.....
Much wider hatches. Hatches that do not have power cables, etc running through them.
SSRMS
More power available and hence more labs
A big window.
I'm sure the list could get quite detailed and technical but what are you really after here?
-
Well I'm sure there was a "choice" somewhere along the line. Why wouldn't anyone use the vast capabilities of the shuttle? ISS is much better for it.
If you cannot use the Shuttle for other missions, yes of course. But back to my question about the why of ISS structure and the advantage over a station type like Mir.
What I understand the ISS has the following advantage:
- Special purpose modules without overhead (propulsion)
- Centralized energy management
- trust with external points to get additional experiments attached
Any more?
Let's see.....
Much wider hatches. Hatches that do not have power cables, etc running through them.
SSRMS
More power available and hence more labs
A big window.
I'm sure the list could get quite detailed and technical but what are you really after here?
My initial question is already answered :-) thanx! Yes, I love the cupola too.
-
No. I ask if there was any study if a space station should be built with shuttle only, with a mix of shuttle and EELV, or with EELV only.
Some research show you that a lot of the mass of the big russian modules goes to non-science stuff that is not needed after it has docked with station. Take MLM for example, it will have engines, propellant tanks and guidance that will take up mass and space that could have been used for science. Columbus, Destiny and Kibo are 100% science based since they where carried up by shuttle. So that is a way more effective way in building a station.
Sure you could have developed a tug and launched in EELV but what was the point when shuttle existed?
Don't forget there was a capability -- deliberately ignored in the ISS design process -- and thus unused -- of Skylab-style modules launched on top of Energia. Each of those modules would have all the 'redundant' capabilities that you mention, but for modules THAT large, the useful volume would be fairly good. Probably ISS construction time would have been much shorter, and its look distinctly different. But such an option would have taken much less use of the Shuttle -- thus the option was never entertained.
-
Don't forget there was a capability -- deliberately ignored in the ISS design process -- and thus unused -- of Skylab-style modules launched on top of Energia. Each of those modules would have all the 'redundant' capabilities that you mention, but for modules THAT large, the useful volume would be fairly good. Probably ISS construction time would have been much shorter, and its look distinctly different. But such an option would have taken much less use of the Shuttle -- thus the option was never entertained.
No, not true.
Energia was not available. Nor was it ignored, it was never part of a US plan.
Skylab style modules are over rated.
-
Don't forget there was a capability -- deliberately ignored in the ISS design process -- and thus unused -- of Skylab-style modules launched on top of Energia. Each of those modules would have all the 'redundant' capabilities that you mention, but for modules THAT large, the useful volume would be fairly good. Probably ISS construction time would have been much shorter, and its look distinctly different. But such an option would have taken much less use of the Shuttle -- thus the option was never entertained.
No, not true.
Energia was not available. Nor was it ignored, it was never part of a US plan.
Skylab style modules are over rated.
AFAIK, roof collapse at Baikonur (the one that destroyed Buran and a mock-up of Energia) also destroyed 2 sets of Energia rockets.
Of course it was never part of US plan -- much merrier to finally put Shuttle to the use it was designed for and keep it busy for years and years launching modules.
Skylab styles modules are over rated? That makes sense -- after all, Soviet space program never bothered itself with those, sticking to its tried and true station design philosophy (but by the same token it doesn't mean 'Skylab-style' is completely useless -- it's just inferior). But with a benefit of hindsight, what was a better choice -- a couple of Skylab-style modules as part of ISS, or more than a decade spent on station construction?
-
But with a benefit of hindsight, what was a better choice -- a couple of Skylab-style modules as part of ISS, or more than a decade spent on station construction?
No,
a. The cost of developing an HLV for a few launches would be more than the shuttle costs.
b. the lesson learned was to have the ability to launch the payloads on multiple launch vehicles.