-
#40 by iamlucky13 on 15 Apr, 2008 20:23
-
Quote
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.
Possibly, but it requires either using a nearly identical orbit for the new station, which I think few parties would be inclined to do, or launching fairly substantial tugs to move those modules into the new orbit. That's to reuse modules that are 10+ years old with the associated micrometeorite and UV damage, and aging of the onboard mechanical and electrical systems. It may be more practical to build new, especially if a brand new core changed major design factors like air pressure, electrical system, or module interface. -
#41 by gospacex on 15 Apr, 2008 22:00
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 12/4/2008 11:56 AM
Quotegospacex - 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.
These purposes make much less sense in 2008 than they did in 1969. Today, we need exploration program which makes sense, not just makes us proud ("we did it!").QuoteA 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)?" -
#42 by edkyle99 on 15 Apr, 2008 22:46
-
Quote
gospacex - 15/4/2008 5:00 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 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? The primary reason, from a Congressman's standpoint, is still prestige, international prestige, even in the absence of a Cold War. That is how NASA gets the bucks, but it is NASA's job to extract the most useful program out of whatever funding is available. It is also NASA's job to press forward toward whatever is the ultimate purpose of human space exploration. If NASA can't send people to the Moon or to Mars, due to funding constraints, then the logical next step is to soldier on with long-term human presence in Earth orbit.
I believe that NASA planners knew early on that the Agency could well be left short of the Moon. That is why they planned Ares I and Orion - a LEO launch vehicle that could perform continued ISS service even if lunar program funding fell through.
That is what I am saying - that NASA will have only Ares I and Orion, perhaps by plan and perhaps by chance. It only makes sense to use these tools to whatever extent possible to fulfill some incremental step toward the ultimate goal. ISS, and ISS follow-ons, would serve that purpose.
- Ed Kyle -
#43 by gospacex on 15 Apr, 2008 23:08
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 15/4/2008 5:46 PM
Quotegospacex - 15/4/2008 5:00 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 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?
You are basically asking "what should stand for X,Y,Z above?". Thanks! That's what I wanted - define objectives *first*, find means *next*. You had it backwards.
I do not want to get into a discussion what X,Y,Z should be. This is a different discussion. In my opinion, which I am not going to push (at least in this thread):
* we need to develop cheap (cheaper than now) LEO trasport.
* we need to R&D the ability to live in space and on moon/planet/asteroid surface for a prolonged period of time (ideally - indefinitely).
* we need to R&D ISRU technologies. -
#44 by DfwRevolution on 16 Apr, 2008 02:09
-
Quote
janmb - 13/4/2008 9:11 AM
Quotegospacex - 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.
There is always something to be learned from putting a crew in space for long duration, even if they are only eating, sleeping, and breathing. I believe the "LEO station as technology demonstrator" concept has its role in a comprehensive space exploration policy. Aerospace relies on flight experience to validate hardware for further use, and in many instances, LEO is the ideal balance of risk and reward. We need a venue to test latest versions of Elektron, space laundry machines, greenhouses, etc before they go off to the Moon and Mars. And I'm sure that between meals and loads of laundry, there would be ample time to conduct microgravity research.
It's certainly possible that by 2020 such an outpost could be built much more efficiently than the ISS, and commercial space firms should be major players from the U.S. side.
-
#45 by MrTim on 16 Apr, 2008 03:52
-
Quote
Jim - 15/4/2008 4:42 AM
Jim, There is a HUGE difference between "can't be done" (as in "physically impossible"), and "I don't believe anybody will do it". One is a statement of fact and is possibly an appropriate place for a blunt shoot-down; the latter, however is just an opinion which may or may not be informed to some degree but is, nonetheless only opinion. The simple fact is that there is no major component of ISS that cannot be physically disconnected from the others and be discarded and replaced by something else if the operators of the system choose to expend the resources to do it. I don't care if one is the prime designer of STS, has flown on it, lives in the rubber room at pad 39A, has personally built a Delta IV Heavy with his bare hands and is now the CEO of Boeing or Lockmart... When one makes blunt pronouncements of fact that are, in fact, not correct one loses credibility. If you mean to say nobody will pay for a thing, then just say "I do not believe anybody will pay for that", rather than "No, can't be done".QuoteMrTim - 15/4/2008 1:17 AM
Wrong,can't be done includes not spending billions of dollars to do it.QuoteJim - 12/4/2008 10:59 AM
What???Quotefloron - 12/4/2008 12:31 PM
the USOS core: Node 1&2, Lab, FGB, and truss can't be disconnected from each other
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...
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.QuoteJim - 15/4/2008 4:42 AM
I don't think anybody was suggesting a simple shuttle flight would be used to swap a module out. First, it generally takes most of the spacewalking time available on an STS mission just to do one part of such a task (mode a module from payload bay to station and hook it up). Second, this discussion is about a post-ISS station, which by any reasonable definition means post-STS as well. In such a situation, large modules might be lofted on an Ares V or perhaps materials on a set of EELVs. The station might be unmanned during such a major change or perhaps crew would move into a newly added section while an older section is removed. The discussion was so vague and open-ended that it was not rational to rule it out as impossible.
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 stationQuoteJim - 15/4/2008 4:42 AM
Nobody said a solar array and a truss were the same thing. Both, however, could be removed, discarded, moved, replaced, etc. It is within the realm of what is physically possible.
Also a solar array is not a truss. It is only a component on the truss, which was made to be replaced
-
#46 by Norm Hartnett on 16 Apr, 2008 04:28
-
Quote
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.
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.
-
#47 by Sid454 on 16 Apr, 2008 04:42
-
Griffin will likely be gone by this time next year so we can't say ISS will be space junk by 2016.
As for next generation space stations look no farther then Bigelow Aerospace's BA330 as these are skylab sized inflatables that can fit on an EELV,F9-H, or shuttle class RLVs.
I feel inflatables like bigelow's will have a very large part to play in the next space station.
If constellation doesn't tank or get scrapped the Ares V or Jupiter 232 will prove very useful in space station construction four of them could launch a new ISS sized station fully equipped.
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.
Also the SS/L 1300 series bus space tug also can be used for station assembly.
Even Orion if launched on the Jupiter 120 in a non castrated form could serve as a very capable space tug.
It even possible to have any 20 to 30T modules ride up with the Orion on the Jupiter 120 this would include the BA330 as it's under 30 tons.
This would prevent having to waste payload and money on equipping every component with thrusters , fuel tanks , and navigational systems.
One can easily see the wasted space by comparing the Russian and US ISS sections the US ones are far more spacious.
-
#48 by khallow on 16 Apr, 2008 04:58
-
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
Quotemarsavian - 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.
It sounds more to me like NASA is being noncommital. I think any extension of the ISS will probably involve more support from NASA's partners, particularly the EU and Japan. Further, due to the risk from the Shuttle, there's still a modest chance that station construction doesn't complete. And finally, NASA is having significant trouble (last I heard which is increasingly out of date) finding customers. I think there's going to need to be significant improvement in the ISS (which could include a substantial drop in US share of funding support) or it will get splashed soon after 2016.
-
#49 by MrTim on 16 Apr, 2008 05:56
-
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
um... federal budgets simply do not work this way. The congress can insist on expenditures many years from now but they only get to work on next year's budget. People from the executive branch (like NASA folks) can promise to do things (or not) years into the future, but they know full-well that they cannot presume funding levels or political support years in the future. At any given time, anything more than a year out is just a projection and the only thing that makes it more or less likely to happen is actions in the current year or planned for the next fiscal year which will make it more or less possible. Congress and the people at NASA know this, so it's no surprise that nobody said "Yes Sir" and asked "how high?" on the way up...
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.QuoteNorm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
The AMS and PLM issues are just symptoms of the kill-the-shuttle-by-the-end-of-2010 mindset. I expect that they will continue to shuffle shuttle manifests right up through the end to optimize what ends up on-orbit. Griffin has indicated repeatedly that NASA's projections through various dates like 2016 are NOT to be taken as indications that ISS will be discarded; just that this is how far current projections are being made. (and 2016 is already way too far out beyond next fiscal year to be taken very seriously anyway)
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.QuoteNorm Hartnett - 15/4/2008 9:28 PM
My oh my, we are all gloom-and-doom. Ares I will not break the bank; it will be developed at the rate that the funding permits. Same for the Ares V. That's why it has been slipping in schedule. The only way your scenario becomes likely is if Obama or Clinton wins in November... oh, wait...
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.
-
#50 by Jim on 16 Apr, 2008 15:02
-
Quote
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.
1. For the nth time, Parom is not real
2. neither is the SS/L 1300 series bus space tug.
They are just power point studies
