Eerie - 15/4/2008 5:17 AM
If, come Ares V or something similar, you can send a new heavy single core, something like Skylab, could you salvage the modules attached to the ISS - for example, the newer Colombus and Kibo - and attach them to the new core? The money could come from EU/Japan, if it wil be cheaper for them than building new modules for a new station.
edkyle99 - 12/4/2008 11:56 AMQuotegospacex - 12/4/2008 11:38 AM
Am I the only one who finds building stations in order to have a job for the Shaft strange?
Crewed launch vehicles are built to launch humans into space - primarily for the purposes of national prestige.
A human space program can't just consist of humans floating around the planet in a capsule. Astronauts, cosmonauts, etc., need to have someplace to go, something to do.
gospacex - 15/4/2008 5:00 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 12/4/2008 11:56 AM
A human space program can't just consist of humans floating around the planet in a capsule. Astronauts, cosmonauts, etc., need to have someplace to go, something to do.
IMO, you have a horse before a cart. "Gee, we have astronauts, what shall they do?".
Whereas it should be: "We need to do X, Y and Z, do we need astronauts for that? If yes, how many? Do we need a station in orbit or a moon base in order to succeed in doing X, Y and Z? If yes, how big? What kind of experiments? Can we buy/rent station from Bigelow (or whoever else can build it)?"
edkyle99 - 15/4/2008 5:46 PMQuotegospacex - 15/4/2008 5:00 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 12/4/2008 11:56 AM
A human space program can't just consist of humans floating around the planet in a capsule. Astronauts, cosmonauts, etc., need to have someplace to go, something to do.
IMO, you have a horse before a cart. "Gee, we have astronauts, what shall they do?".
Whereas it should be: "We need to do X, Y and Z, do we need astronauts for that? If yes, how many? Do we need a station in orbit or a moon base in order to succeed in doing X, Y and Z? If yes, how big? What kind of experiments? Can we buy/rent station from Bigelow (or whoever else can build it)?"
The question needs to be broader than that, IMO. What is the ultimate purpose of human exploration? Isn't it to extend human presence into the solar system - ultimately on a permanent basis? If not, then why are *any* humans launched into space?
I think we can agree that most space "exploration" can be done without humans actually "up there". I think we can also agree that the United States Congress is not going to authorize, any time soon, funding to send people to live permanently on the Moon or on Mars.
So why have a human program at all?
janmb - 13/4/2008 9:11 AMQuotegospacex - 12/4/2008 5:38 PM
Am I the only one who finds building stations in order to have a job for the Shaft strange?
No you are not.
entirely too many people seem to think we should have a space station, a particular space craft / launcher etc, with the main (or even worse, only) purpose being to employ people or getting watch spectacular launches.
Science and moving forward as a race. We don't do it for my (or anyone else's) entertainment.
Jim - 15/4/2008 4:42 AMQuoteMrTim - 15/4/2008 1:17 AMQuoteJim - 12/4/2008 10:59 AMQuotefloron - 12/4/2008 12:31 PM
is there any reason why new modules can't be added to the station and old modules discarded as they become unusable? i gather it would take some fancy re-wiring, but it seems to me to make sense to 'grow' the current station rather than chuck everything out and start again from scratch...the USOS core: Node 1&2, Lab, FGB, and truss can't be disconnected from each otherWhat???
when did they weld/fuse the bodies of those elements together???
and don't we have things called cutting torches?
![]()
Sorry for the sarcasm Jim, but every module that is up there can be disconnected from every other if the partners agree to do it and they provide the right support for the effort. Solar arrays can be rolled-up or ejected and replaced, another vehicle could be docked to provide power... one way or another modules could certainly be removed/replaced. More trusses and robot arms could be added to assist the effort as needed. It's just a matter of will and money.Wrong,can't be done includes not spending billions of dollars to do it.
Jim - 15/4/2008 4:42 AM
The point was switch out "A" module. Those on the list can't be disconnected in the current configuration with just a simple shuttle flight. Yes, if you have another station standing by it could be done, providing you have the billions to make the other station
Jim - 15/4/2008 4:42 AM
Also a solar array is not a truss. It is only a component on the truss, which was made to be replaced
marsavian - 11/4/2008 8:07 PM
I don't believe the ISS will be deorbited anytime soon. There are too many interested countries to let it happen, the 'International' part is what will make it endure. As for an eventual replacement that will await a HLV like Ares V as no-one is going to do it in 20 mT blocks again. The catalyst for that will be for a specific need like a propellant depot.
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PMQuotemarsavian - 11/4/2008 8:07 PM
I don't believe the ISS will be deorbited anytime soon. There are too many interested countries to let it happen, the 'International' part is what will make it endure. As for an eventual replacement that will await a HLV like Ares V as no-one is going to do it in 20 mT blocks again. The catalyst for that will be for a specific need like a propellant depot.
I have come to believe that this is not true. NASA seems to be determined to see the station discontinued in 2016, come hell, high water, international partners, or Congress. During the hearings on the designation of the ISS as a National Laboratory Congress specifically told NASA to plan for the extension of the ISS’ lifetime. NASA’s response was not “Yes Sir” it was, to paraphrase, “well lets see if anyone uses it then we will extend it”. Since there will be very limited (and expensive) access to the ISS from now-2016 and all experiments have to go through NASA’s torturous approval process I think we can all see where this leads.
Furthermore NASA has made several decisions that point clearly, IMO, to an expectation that the ISS will be deorbited in 2016. The decision to not fly AMS, the recent rumored reorganization of the manifest of the last three flights of the Shuttle, the refusal to consider the addition of the PLM, all point to a continuing assumption by NASA that the ISS will be gone by 2016.
Will a change in the NASA administration change this attitude? I think the inertia in HQ will preclude that but it is the only hope I have at this point.
So once Ares I/Orion breaks the bank and Ares V is not funded the US manned space effort will fizzle out as it did in the early seventies. The occasional Orion in LEO waving the flag, that’s about it.
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
I have come to believe that this is not true. NASA seems to be determined to see the station discontinued in 2016, come hell, high water, international partners, or Congress. During the hearings on the designation of the ISS as a National Laboratory Congress specifically told NASA to plan for the extension of the ISS’ lifetime. NASA’s response was not “Yes Sir” it was, to paraphrase, “well lets see if anyone uses it then we will extend it”. Since there will be very limited (and expensive) access to the ISS from now-2016 and all experiments have to go through NASA’s torturous approval process I think we can all see where this leads.
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
Furthermore NASA has made several decisions that point clearly, IMO, to an expectation that the ISS will be deorbited in 2016. The decision to not fly AMS, the recent rumored reorganization of the manifest of the last three flights of the Shuttle, the refusal to consider the addition of the PLM, all point to a continuing assumption by NASA that the ISS will be gone by 2016.
Will a change in the NASA administration change this attitude? I think the inertia in HQ will preclude that but it is the only hope I have at this point.
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
So once Ares I/Orion breaks the bank and Ares V is not funded the US manned space effort will fizzle out as it did in the early seventies. The occasional Orion in LEO waving the flag, that’s about it.
Sid454 - 16/4/2008 12:42 AM
1. For assembly the Parom tug from the Kliper program and the ESA ATV could be used to assemble the parts performing much of the shuttle's old job.
2. Also the SS/L 1300 series bus space tug also can be used for station assembly.