Author Topic: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor  (Read 24387 times)

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« on: 11/15/2011 06:26 PM »
I realized that SLS would have the capability of putting 70+ tons space station modules to orbit. Imagine the huge size of a space station built from 70+ ton modules! One of these modules would be over three times the size of a single Mir core module. I think this would be a good follow-up in the years when ISS becomes no longer usable.

Of course that would be years away and there's no need to even plan for this now, but it is good to take comfort that a much larger station could be assembled when the time has come using 70 ton modules launched via SLS.

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 684
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #1 on: 11/15/2011 06:41 PM »
Interesting idea. 

The module size might even be sufficient to experiment with industrial scale, microgravity manufacturing.

Also, depending on the faring size, it might be possible to actually launch a 'garage module' that would allow for man tended in space assembly of deep space probes from pre-assembled components launched on smaller rockets.  Say, for example, a Mars probe and its TMI/Cruise stages mated and tested before being sent over to a fuel depot and off to their destination.

Imagine the reliabilty gains if components could be assembled and tested in the microgravity environment before they are sent off to other planets.  Today's Space.Com article about how hard space flight is makes specific mention of the far less than benign environment satellites are subjected to at launch. 

Wouldn't it be nice to minimize those impacts?
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #2 on: 11/15/2011 06:44 PM »
I realized that SLS would have the capability of putting 70+ tons space station modules to orbit. Imagine the huge size of a space station built from 70+ ton modules! One of these modules would be over three times the size of a single Mir core module. I think this would be a good follow-up in the years when ISS becomes no longer usable.

Of course that would be years away and there's no need to even plan for this now, but it is good to take comfort that a much larger station could be assembled when the time has come using 70 ton modules launched via SLS.

Not going to happen.
There is no NASA need for such a station or even modules.  There is no need for an ISS type followon.
NASA can buy time on commercial stations
« Last Edit: 11/15/2011 06:48 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #3 on: 11/15/2011 06:47 PM »

Imagine the reliabilty gains if components could be assembled and tested in the microgravity environment before they are sent off to other planets.  Today's Space.Com article about how hard space flight is makes specific mention of the far less than benign environment satellites are subjected to at launch. 

Wouldn't it be nice to minimize those impacts?

Not really, microgravity and vacuum are worse environments than launch.

Do you have a link?
« Last Edit: 11/15/2011 06:48 PM by Jim »

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 684
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #4 on: 11/15/2011 06:53 PM »

Imagine the reliabilty gains if components could be assembled and tested in the microgravity environment before they are sent off to other planets.  Today's Space.Com article about how hard space flight is makes specific mention of the far less than benign environment satellites are subjected to at launch. 

Wouldn't it be nice to minimize those impacts?

Not really, microgravity and vacuum are worse environments than launch.

Do you have a link?

Here Jim,

http://www.space.com/13620-spaceflight-difficult-launch-mission-failures.html

Quote
Developing the systems to harness and direct that energy is tough, Logsdon added, as is devising spacecraft that can survive the bumpy blastoff and work in the harsh environment of space.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline nethegauner

  • Awaiting flight assignment since 1975
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #5 on: 11/18/2011 12:43 PM »
I realized that SLS would have the capability of putting 70+ tons space station modules to orbit. Imagine the huge size of a space station built from 70+ ton modules!

Why modules? I mean, why several of them? You could build something like the Option C re-design of Freedom -- a can. One launch -- and You're as good as done . . !

Not going to happen. There is no NASA need for such a station or even modules. There is no need for an ISS type followon. NASA can buy time on commercial stations

Agreed, but You could launch a 70 ton commercial station using SLS, right? So the issues are related, I'd say.

Offline Moonshot69

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #6 on: 11/18/2011 01:32 PM »
I would love to see a cost study on if they used the Saturn Delievery system to build the ISS VS the Shuttle. You could have built it with much fewer launches using the Saturn V, albeit more expensive per launch. Crew launches could have followed on the smaller (less expensive) Saturn 1B flights. I find it just amazing that we had this very reliable working family of Rockets called Saturn Launch System (SLS!!!!). And now we have to spend all this money devolping and building another system with very simular capabilities. The Saturn sysem had the same flexability as the new SLS. Think of what NASA could have done with the Saturn family of rockets with 30 years of upgrades.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #7 on: 11/18/2011 06:48 PM »
As regards an SLS-launched modular successor to ISS, wouldn't it be better to build a small station at a Lagrange point rather than another large station in LEO?
-- sdsds --

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #8 on: 11/18/2011 07:12 PM »
I realized that SLS would have the capability of putting 70+ tons space station modules to orbit. Imagine the huge size of a space station built from 70+ ton modules! One of these modules would be over three times the size of a single Mir core module. I think this would be a good follow-up in the years when ISS becomes no longer usable.

Of course that would be years away and there's no need to even plan for this now, but it is good to take comfort that a much larger station could be assembled when the time has come using 70 ton modules launched via SLS.

Not going to happen.
There is no NASA need for such a station or even modules.  There is no need for an ISS type followon.
NASA can buy time on commercial stations

Which commerical stations ??

Bigelow just cut their workforce in half, blaming NASA on commerical crew delays. After reading some posts on the Bigelow thread, it sounds like they still have a whole lot of work to do before they can launch modules ready for a sustained scientific mission.


Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #9 on: 11/18/2011 07:20 PM »
Which commerical stations ??

Bigelow just cut their workforce in half, blaming NASA on commerical crew delays. After reading some posts on the Bigelow thread, it sounds like they still have a whole lot of work to do before they can launch modules ready for a sustained scientific mission.

The station which will be available for rent in 9 to 10 years... or later... ISS is funded until 2020.

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10628
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2787
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #10 on: 11/18/2011 08:00 PM »
I realized that SLS would have the capability of putting 70+ tons space station modules to orbit. Imagine the huge size of a space station built from 70+ ton modules! One of these modules would be over three times the size of a single Mir core module. I think this would be a good follow-up in the years when ISS becomes no longer usable.

Of course that would be years away and there's no need to even plan for this now, but it is good to take comfort that a much larger station could be assembled when the time has come using 70 ton modules launched via SLS.

1. Not going to happen.
2. There is no NASA need for such a station or even modules. 
3. There is no need for an ISS type followon.
4. NASA can buy time on commercial stations

1. May I borrow your crystal ball?
2. Not now, but maybe later. ISS is not immortal.
3. Same as #2.
4. What commercial stations? There aren't any.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #11 on: 11/18/2011 08:07 PM »

1. May I borrow your crystal ball?
2. Not now, but maybe later. ISS is not immortal.
3. Same as #2.
4. What commercial stations? There aren't any.

NASA doesn't have budget nor will it ever for another ISS.  It has no need for one.  Nor does the rest of the US gov't
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 08:07 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #12 on: 11/18/2011 08:10 PM »

4. What commercial stations? There aren't any.

There can be, just as there wasn't an commercial crew vehicles a few years ago. 
The point is NASA can no longer afford large engineering projects like ISS.  And the country has no need for one.  But if you want a jobs program.....

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #13 on: 11/18/2011 08:24 PM »

4. What commercial stations? There aren't any.

There can be, just as there wasn't an commercial crew vehicles a few years ago. 
The point is NASA can no longer afford large engineering projects like ISS.  And the country has no need for one.  But if you want a jobs program.....

There still aren't any commerical crew vehicles, and the commerical market hasn't proven the need for one.

NASA needs the services of a crewed vehicle. They have decided to outsource to a conpany based in the US instead of a company based in Russia.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #14 on: 11/18/2011 08:51 PM »
As regards an SLS-launched modular successor to ISS, wouldn't it be better to build a small station at a Lagrange point rather than another large station in LEO?

The station need not be small and instead should be sized for the max IMLEO payload of SLS and then use ion propulsion to climb to it's operational orbit.

It also can be sized for the Block II or III SLS vs the 70mt Block one as that's what will be flying when ISS is retired.
As for what it can be I think the BA-2100 or some of the 1960 to 1970s era examples would be a good starting point.

If funding is short worst case would be to modify an EDS as an advanced Skylab type station or pay Bigelow for a BA-2100 or several BA-330s.

I really don't like some of the posts such as NASA cannot afford big engineering projects any more as if that's going to be the case forever.

Recessions no matter how bad always come to an end what is the financial situation today most likely will not be the case ten years from now.

An ISS successor is far enough in the future the economic situation that will exist when it's time cannot be predicted.

Heck I cannot even say with much certainty what would be the launch vehicle used to lift it.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 09:01 PM by Patchouli »

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10628
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2787
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #15 on: 11/18/2011 09:04 PM »
NASA doesn't have budget nor will it ever for another ISS.  It has no need for one.  Nor does the rest of the US gov't
It's just a matter of priority. NASA doesn't have the budget for it "today", and doesn't need that budget, because it already HAS a space station - ISS. But once ISS goes away it could very well be a completely different situation. When that happens the money will appear. There is more money in this country than you can shake a stick at. It's just being held close to the bankers' chests, scrooge-like, waiting for the economy to loosen up. And it eventually will.

4. What commercial stations? There aren't any.
There can be, just as there wasn't an commercial crew vehicles a few years ago.  The point is NASA can no longer afford large engineering projects like ISS.  And the country has no need for one.  But if you want a jobs program.....

NASA was created to do large engineering projects like ISS and it will do them again - probably many times over. We are in a recession at the moment and money is tight. When the recession is over we will be awash with cash. Look at the economic history. It comes and goes in cycles. Lots of money, very little money, lots of money, very little money; over and over again. But the money is never really gone, it's just locked up by the banks until the economy looses up and then it comes out of the box. When the recession is over and the ISS is gone, the US Government will find a need for a new station - you watch. And they *will* have the cash to pay for it.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 09:05 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1776
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #16 on: 11/18/2011 09:08 PM »
Maybe a 70-ton habitat for transit to NEO or Mars system.

But let's face it: the only SLS-class payload we can afford is an upper stage full of propellant. Anything else even remotely close to budgetary limitations is at best FH-class or more likely DIVH-class payloads.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #17 on: 11/18/2011 09:14 PM »

It's just a matter of priority.
 snip

NASA was created to do large engineering projects like ISS

It will never be a priority.  This isn't scifi or 2001.  There is no real justification for a govt run large space station past ISS.

No, NASA was created to beat the Soviets, that task is no longer needed.  It more like an NSF for space and there is no need for large govt space projects. 
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 09:14 PM by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #18 on: 11/18/2011 10:33 PM »

It's just a matter of priority.
 snip

NASA was created to do large engineering projects like ISS

It will never be a priority.  This isn't scifi or 2001.  There is no real justification for a govt run large space station past ISS.

No, NASA was created to beat the Soviets, that task is no longer needed.  It more like an NSF for space and there is no need for large govt space projects. 
NSF has a base at the South Pole, still. I agree that something of the scale and especially the COST of ISS probably won't be attempted by NASA in LEO for the forseeable future after ISS, but if it is cheap enough I wouldn't be surprised if another station is done. You're probably right that this means a commercial station if any.

By the way, operating ISS is about an order of magnitude more expensive than South Pole station, with far fewer people at ISS than are at South Pole Station:
  "The total budget request for the [NSF] Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is a shade over $490 million, an 11 percent increase over OPP’s estimated FY 2008 budget."
But remember this includes a lot of stuff not including actual resupply and building at the South Pole:
  "Coming in at $255 million, Antarctic infrastructure and logistics support accounts for more than half of OPP’s entire budget. "

If we can get a NASA station operating for less than a billion per year with at least as much capability as ISS (probably more), then I can see more post-ISS LEO work for NASA. But it will mean operating with a very different approach than NASA has in the past. The commercial crew and cargo is only the beginning of that, they're going to have to streamline other stuff as well if they want a permanent presence for research in LEO. (Total budget is currently several billion for ISS.) NASA's only real chance at a permanent presence in LEO post-ISS is that some sort of commercial market will grow around commercial crew, etc. If not, NASA will have to abandon LEO entirely while they focus their efforts on beyond-LEO.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 10:33 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #19 on: 11/18/2011 10:33 PM »
...and by the way, don't count Bigelow out, yet. Even if Bigelow fails, another will spring up eventually. And actually, I think there's room for competition. Bigelow isn't the well-oiled machine they claimed to be, so a very energetic and well-focused company could beat them. There are a few Bigelow employees out of work. Biggest thing you need, of course, is to find customers. Find customers, and people will throw money at you (partly why Elon Musk has been successful so far in spite of being a ballsy, somewhat arrogant newcomer is because there is a large market and pent-up demand for good electric cars---people are begging electric car manufacturers to take their money--and a reasonably large global market for affordable launch services... even though Elon has been slow to deliver on both those fronts, there's a real market there, so money will flow if they don't fail technically).

And I think there's good evidence that there are lots of customers for affordable suborbital space tourism, too. Just need to deliver and not spend too much money on it.

Whether there's enough of a market for a commercial space station, though, is a lot harder gamble, in my opinion. So much hinges on affordable launch, and in order to get affordable enough means you need RLVs, and in order for there to be a high enough flight rate for RLVs depends on if there's a market for a commercial space station.... It's a difficult problem to solve. I bet if you could get the per-passenger cost of a human-rated orbital launch vehicle down to a million dollars per person per lauynch, you could get several hundred passengers a year, but it'd be a stretch at best. But to get costs that low would take a very, very high flight rate... It's a chicken-and-egg problem that might never resolve until a new use for a high-flight-rate RLV is found besides tourism (or until we all get a lot richer).

Now, compare all this for the price of a single launch of SLS, and you quickly run out of money (A thousand people going to an orbital space station every year paying a million dollars each only nets you a billion dollars, a small fraction of the annual operating costs of SLS... Your space station is going to need to find a much cheaper way to get up there.)

Find a new use for space that requires an RLV but is still quite profitable and you may open up the solar system. Until then, we're talking about almost a zero-sum game.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #20 on: 11/19/2011 12:09 AM »
...and by the way, don't count Bigelow out, yet. Even if Bigelow fails, another will spring up eventually. And actually, I think there's room for competition. Bigelow isn't the well-oiled machine they claimed to be, so a very energetic and well-focused company could beat them. There are a few Bigelow employees out of work. Biggest thing you need, of course, is to find customers. Find customers, and people will throw money at you (partly why Elon Musk has been successful so far in spite of being a ballsy, somewhat arrogant newcomer is because there is a large market and pent-up demand for good electric cars---people are begging electric car manufacturers to take their money--and a reasonably large global market for affordable launch services... even though Elon has been slow to deliver on both those fronts, there's a real market there, so money will flow if they don't fail technically).

And I think there's good evidence that there are lots of customers for affordable suborbital space tourism, too. Just need to deliver and not spend too much money on it.

Whether there's enough of a market for a commercial space station, though, is a lot harder gamble, in my opinion. So much hinges on affordable launch, and in order to get affordable enough means you need RLVs, and in order for there to be a high enough flight rate for RLVs depends on if there's a market for a commercial space station.... It's a difficult problem to solve. I bet if you could get the per-passenger cost of a human-rated orbital launch vehicle down to a million dollars per person per lauynch, you could get several hundred passengers a year, but it'd be a stretch at best. But to get costs that low would take a very, very high flight rate... It's a chicken-and-egg problem that might never resolve until a new use for a high-flight-rate RLV is found besides tourism (or until we all get a lot richer).

Now, compare all this for the price of a single launch of SLS, and you quickly run out of money (A thousand people going to an orbital space station every year paying a million dollars each only nets you a billion dollars, a small fraction of the annual operating costs of SLS... Your space station is going to need to find a much cheaper way to get up there.)

Find a new use for space that requires an RLV but is still quite profitable and you may open up the solar system. Until then, we're talking about almost a zero-sum game.

Bigelow has money he's just waiting for a commercial vehicle.

Though if Bigelow went under expect someone like Musk or Bezos to snap up the assets and fly something.

Bezos does have enough money and his commercial orbital RLV would need a destination.

But I have to say NASA will probably have their own station after ISS.
It may not be located in LEO but instead at lunar L1.
This really depends on the presence of commercial US stations in LEO.
If NASA is to explore Mars and beyond a staging point is necessary.

The uncertainty here is something like Skylon or a fully reusable F9 could completely change the game and make an SLS launched station make less sense.

Though the core sections could still benefit from the large fairing on SLS.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 12:17 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #21 on: 11/19/2011 08:19 PM »
I found an interesting story of a 1970 space station design that might give good insight into what an ISS successor may look like.

http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2011/11/mcdonnell-douglas-phase-b-12-man-space.html

Since it might be better to move microgravity experiments to unmanned and man tended free fliers that are usually devoid of a crew a future station could feature artificial gravity.
This would be more in line with the long term goal of learning how to live in space for long duration missions.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 08:19 PM by Patchouli »

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #22 on: 11/20/2011 11:52 PM »
This argument both comes down to one simple question.  Can a space station be constructed and maintained for a cost that is less than the benefits that it can provide? 

I think it is pretty safe to say that no one will be spending $100 billion, and several billion dollars per year.  However among space stations the ISS is the exception. 

Practically all of the others including the new Chinese space station, the MIR space station, Skylab, several experimental Russian stations did not cost nearly that much. 

Now if we can build and maintain space stations that cost under $10 billion and < $1 billion per year than I think it is a possibility.

Even the critics admit there is value in having a space station just not $100 billion dollars of value.   

Offline Astromark

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #23 on: 11/21/2011 12:24 AM »
I think there will be a follow-on to the ISS, but I doubt it'll be a science station. As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO - a waypoint for spacecraft headed to the outer solar system. It could also service commercial vehicles, of which I hope there'll be many by the time all of this is possible.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #24 on: 11/21/2011 12:50 AM »
This argument both comes down to one simple question.  Can a space station be constructed and maintained for a cost that is less than the benefits that it can provide? 

I think it is pretty safe to say that no one will be spending $100 billion, and several billion dollars per year.  However among space stations the ISS is the exception. 

Practically all of the others including the new Chinese space station, the MIR space station, Skylab, several experimental Russian stations did not cost nearly that much. 

Now if we can build and maintain space stations that cost under $10 billion and < $1 billion per year than I think it is a possibility.

Even the critics admit there is value in having a space station just not $100 billion dollars of value.   

An SLS built station is probably would be assembled in 5  or so Skylab sized payloads in just a few years vs 30 to 40 smaller launches spread out across over a decade and a half.

It should be a lot cheaper then ISS was.

Even if each module costs 5B on orbit it would still come in at about 1/4 the cost.

A Bigelow module could very well be no more expensive then the SLS rocket that carries it up.
In that case ISS 2 could be not much more then a single BA-2100,solar arrays,a docking node,and propulsion node.
The whole thing could be lifted on just two or three SLS block I flights.

Nice to have would be a Nautilus-X style centrifuge, truss mounted solar arrays,and some sorta work area for spacecraft maintenance.

« Last Edit: 11/21/2011 01:25 AM by Patchouli »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #25 on: 11/21/2011 01:07 AM »
Large module space station like Skylab or multiple modules connected together. Whether for Nasa or commercial it looks like it could be the next step for LEO station(s). After that it would seem that stations might be constructed in space ( piece by piece non modular, more like Star Trek or Babylon 5 stations ). Whether commercial or goverment funded, for science, manufacturing, or recreation, ect.

So after the test flight(s) are done then this could be one of many good payload(s) for SLS block I.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #26 on: 11/21/2011 02:15 AM »
Large module space station like Skylab or multiple modules connected together. Whether for Nasa or commercial it looks like it could be the next step for LEO station(s). After that it would seem that stations might be constructed in space ( piece by piece non modular, more like Star Trek or Babylon 5 stations ). Whether commercial or goverment funded, for science, manufacturing, or recreation, ect.

So after the test flight(s) are done then this could be one of many good payload(s) for SLS block I.

Yeah, right.  Who has the money for such a station?  Also, NASA has no plans orr one neither.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #27 on: 11/21/2011 02:46 AM »
Large module space station like Skylab or multiple modules connected together. Whether for Nasa or commercial it looks like it could be the next step for LEO station(s). After that it would seem that stations might be constructed in space ( piece by piece non modular, more like Star Trek or Babylon 5 stations ). Whether commercial or goverment funded, for science, manufacturing, or recreation, ect.

So after the test flight(s) are done then this could be one of many good payload(s) for SLS block I.

Yeah, right.  Who has the money for such a station?  Also, NASA has no plans orr one neither.
Why would Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) not want a station after ISS?

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #28 on: 11/21/2011 02:53 AM »
Until we have warehouses in space I don't see how you would be able to build a module from parts out there. You would need all the materials, tooling and workers.

How would we build such a warehouse?

RLVs? Skylon?

Yeah, that's still science fiction just like Bab 5.

Right now I don't really care if there is a station in LEO or not. It's not like it's that far away or they can do any real exploration up there. They just go around and around and it costs lots of money.

Build a new station at EML-1/2 or LLO and I'd be more interested.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #29 on: 11/21/2011 03:34 AM »
Why would Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) not want a station after ISS?
Why would they ? Things could change, but currently there's no indication the government has any requirement for a crewed station after ISS.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #30 on: 11/21/2011 03:49 AM »
I think there will be a follow-on to the ISS, but I doubt it'll be a science station. As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO - a waypoint for spacecraft headed to the outer solar system. It could also service commercial vehicles, of which I hope there'll be many by the time all of this is possible.
If the BLEO program gets the shaft then I have my fingers crossed for an artificial gravity station.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #31 on: 11/21/2011 05:07 AM »
Until we have warehouses in space I don't see how you would be able to build a module from parts out there. You would need all the materials, tooling and workers.

How would we build such a warehouse?

RLVs? Skylon?

Yeah, that's still science fiction just like Bab 5.

Right now I don't really care if there is a station in LEO or not. It's not like it's that far away or they can do any real exploration up there. They just go around and around and it costs lots of money.

Build a new station at EML-1/2 or LLO and I'd be more interested.
The part about building a station in space was for future beyond 2030 and not a module but the whole station. Most parts ( structure ) would most likely be made on the moon.

Building it would most likely start from an existing modular station.

ISS is for science, experimentation, ect. Not for just going around LEO orbit.

You could have multiple station at different locations.


Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #32 on: 11/21/2011 05:44 AM »
Why would Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) not want a station after ISS?
Why would they ? Things could change, but currently there's no indication the government has any requirement for a crewed station after ISS.
The topic is 70-ton ISS successor
So even if Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) has not said anything about an ISS successor that does not mean there will be no successor. 2020 is a long way off and we don't have the SLS block I yet ( or a launcher in it's class ). There are private companies, not just in the U.S. that are looking to put up stations and not just for tourist.

Station(s) might do research, manufacturing ( could be medicine not able to be made on Earth ), satellite repair, ect.

If other countries end up with station and the U.S. does not have one then were does that leave the U.S.?

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #33 on: 11/21/2011 07:04 AM »
So even if Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) has not said anything about an ISS successor that does not mean there will be no successor.
All I've said is that the US doesn't currently have a requirement for a post ISS station. NASA isn't going plan one until a requirement is identified. That requirement has to be sufficiently compelling to convince congress to budget billions of dollars for it. Sure, you can come up with all kinds of hand wavy speculative reasons to build one, but so what ?
Quote
If other countries end up with station and the U.S. does not have one then were does that leave the U.S.?
If the US doesn't have a requirement for a space station, then it's irrelevant what other countries or commercial entities are doing. "Somebody else has one" is not a good reason to build a space station.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #34 on: 11/21/2011 07:45 AM »
Infact that argument of "we have to have one too" does seem valid.

What are the chances of China having a space station and the USA not?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8543
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #35 on: 11/21/2011 08:45 AM »
A EML-1/2 gateway spacestation can be used for the storage, repair and refueling of lunar landers and Mars Transfer Vehicles.  Astronauts can change from vehicles equipped for Earth re-entry to the landers.

Trades need doing on whether propellant is lifted directly to EML-1/2 depot using the upper stage of LV or a (smaller) LV delivers the propellant to the LEO depot and a SEP takes it to EML-1/2 depot.

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #36 on: 11/21/2011 08:45 AM »
What are the chances of China having a space station and the USA not?

Question will be, why the Chinese need a station if other countries, like USA, have no requirement after 2020 for one?!

Offline nethegauner

  • Awaiting flight assignment since 1975
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #37 on: 11/21/2011 09:08 AM »
Intersting. So now this thread is no longer about the feasability of launching space stations modules using SLS -- it is about the issue whether or not anyone needs a space station.

Well, we have to be careful, I'd say.

When , for e.g., Jim says, NASA has no plans for an ISS successor, he is right of course. Has anyone ever heard an official word from NASA about what comes next in regard to LEO, ISS-type space stations? Announcements? Schedules?

If there was one, I missed it. It is all about Orion and exploration and using SLS in support of this.

What I find disturbing however is the notion of space stations being basically useless and hanging around up there in order to create jobs on Earth, or whatever. Of course, the political aspects of the ISS cannot be discussed away -- but I still think that from a scientific point of view and from one of culture, sociology and human development, You cannot give the value of the ISS (or any other manned program) in dollars, euros or whatever currency You are dealing with.

Yeah -- call me a dreamer. But if it were not for dreams, then what the heck do we do in a spaceflight forum ..?

;)
« Last Edit: 11/21/2011 01:21 PM by nethegauner »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 773
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #38 on: 11/21/2011 10:55 AM »
I would remind everyone of what 51D Mascot has reminded us on several occasions.  It is difficult to prognosticate about what "NASA" might "want" or for which it has a budget years in advance as these can change every Presidential or even every Congressional cycle.

Right now, the swingometer of political support is a drive towards a SHLV and deep space exploration.  That could change.  We may yet see some kind of LEO long-term science program revived.  Perhaps, a large space platform might be even be cheaper to operate and easier to construct if the elements are bigger (Skylab- rather than Spacelab-sized).

If we learn anything from SpaceX's and Bigelow's current issues, it is that we cannot assume that certain commercial capabilities will be available. Nor would NASA be wise to base their forward planning on that assumption.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2011 10:56 AM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline nethegauner

  • Awaiting flight assignment since 1975
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #39 on: 11/21/2011 01:23 PM »
I would remind everyone of what 51D Mascot has reminded us on several occasions.  It is difficult to prognosticate about what "NASA" might "want" or for which it has a budget years in advance as these can change every Presidential or even every Congressional cycle.

Good point there, I guess . . .

If we learn anything from SpaceX's and Bigelow's current issues, it is that we cannot assume that certain commercial capabilities will be available. Nor would NASA be wise to base their forward planning on that assumption.

And again: good point. I totally agree.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #40 on: 11/21/2011 05:38 PM »
When , for e.g., Jim says, NASA has no plans for an ISS successor, he is right of course. Has anyone ever heard an official word from NASA about what comes next in regard to LEO, ISS-type space stations? Announcements? Schedules?

If there was one, I missed it. It is all about Orion and exploration and using SLS in support of this.
There will be no money for NASA space stations, or much of anything else if we actually to the point of using SLS for exploration.  (edit: based on historical funding levels...)

What are the chances of China having a space station and the USA not?

Question will be, why the Chinese need a station if other countries, like USA, have no requirement after 2020 for one?!
Why assume they "need" one any more than they needed to host the Olympics or World Expo ? They want to be viewed as a first class world power. The other first class powers did HSF. A space station is an achievable goal, which also develops a wide range of general HSF capabilities. There's no reason to think they have some specific application that justifies a space station on it's own merits.
Infact that argument of "we have to have one too" does seem valid.
So in your view, if the Chinese built a 1000 meter high gold plated monument to Spongebob Squarepants, the US should build one too ?
edit:
Note the above is not intended to imply that space stations are the equivalent of this, just taking "because they have one" to it's logical conclusion.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2011 05:47 PM by hop »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #41 on: 11/21/2011 08:34 PM »
Is there a thread on Beyond ISS
What there might be after ISS and it's uses and purpose.

« Last Edit: 11/22/2011 02:48 AM by RocketmanUS »

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #42 on: 11/22/2011 02:42 AM »
You already know what you've posted is a bit silly.

A 1000m high gold plated spongebob cannot spy on your military assets in real time.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #43 on: 11/22/2011 02:58 AM »
I think there will be a follow-on to the ISS, but I doubt it'll be a science station. As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO - a waypoint for spacecraft headed to the outer solar system. It could also service commercial vehicles, of which I hope there'll be many by the time all of this is possible.
If the BLEO program gets the shaft then I have my fingers crossed for an artificial gravity station.

I think an artificial gravity station would be a very important part of a successful BLEO program.
I mean real exploration vs an Apollo redux.

Without data on the health effects of partial g you may not be able to design a mission that will be successful.

With that data you chances of success are much higher.

Plus the life support equipment should be tested in space before going to lets say Mars so you know what will break,how to fix it, and how many spares to bring.
You already know what you've posted is a bit silly.

A 1000m high gold plated spongebob cannot spy on your military assets in real time.

The only thing sillier is the talk it's not in the budget when it's something that won't launch for at least a decade from now.
We can't say what will be in the budget even just ten years down the road or what we will be doing.

In just 10 years I saw two RLV programs abandoned a return to the moon be proposed in it's place only to self destruct and be reborn in a new form.
The most surprising was commercial cargo and crew which would have been considered laughable in the late 90s but now is very serious and now is only discounted by trolls.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2011 03:10 AM by Patchouli »

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #44 on: 11/22/2011 03:20 AM »
You already know what you've posted is a bit silly.
I'm just extrapolating your claim
Quote
Infact that argument of "we have to have one too" does seem valid.
to it's logical conclusion.
Quote
A 1000m high gold plated spongebob cannot spy on your military assets in real time.
Here you are arguing from the capabilities of the space station, not the mere fact of the other guy having one. It doesn't depend on the other guy having one, it depends on what the station actually does. If crewed stations are good for spying*, that's true whether or not the other guy has one. In some cases matching the other guys capability is a deciding factor, but that still requires that some useful capability actually exist in the first place.

I have no objection to the idea space stations might be the right solution for some things. All I'm saying is that if you are going to claim one is needed, you must actually identify why it is the right solution, not just say "the Chinese have one, so we better have one too!" **

* In reality, this is a terrible example. Both the US and USSR started developing crewed reconnaissance stations, and abandoned them in favor of uncrewed spysats. For a given investment, you get a lot more bang for your buck out of traditional spysats. If the Chinese go for crewed recon stations, the appropriate response is to laugh all the way to the bank, not copy their bad investment. Unless they've come up with some new, novel way to use crewed stations.

** See also: Buran.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #45 on: 11/22/2011 03:25 AM »
The US is that way if the Chinese or the Russians have something that proclaims technical leadership it must have a bigger and better one.

What matters is that it's bigger and better in the right ways.

I think an ISS successor needs to center around developing the technology needed to live in space and act as a staging point for BLEO missions vs being a micro gravity research facility.

It also need not be one station it could very well be cheaper to have few specialized outposts vs a jack of all trades.

A partial G facility for example could be a single dumbbell shape module in LEO launched on a single SLS block 2.

While a depot or L1 safe haven could have very minimum facilities for a crew.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2011 03:32 AM by Patchouli »

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #46 on: 11/22/2011 03:38 AM »
"As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO. "

Ask the scientists how they are gonna like having tankers bumping their zero G experiments on a regular basis ?    How about having a 50 ton bomb of LOX and LH2 attached ?  I bet they would really like that.

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #47 on: 11/22/2011 03:43 AM »
I'd rather see a moon station than another orbiting space station.
“Why should we send people into space when we have kids in the U.S. that can’t read”. - Barack Obama

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #48 on: 11/22/2011 03:44 AM »
"As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO. "

Ask the scientists how they are gonna like having tankers bumping their zero G experiments on a regular basis ?    How about having a 50 ton bomb of LOX and LH2 attached ?  I bet they would really like that.

The LOX and LH2 are much safer on orbit then they are on Earth.

But disturbances are one reason I think ISS won't have a single successor but instead several.

A depot might like to fly gravity gradient stabilized with a tether for settling the propellant and does not have to be crewed.

While a facility for testing out technologies for a mission to Mars could have artificial gravity.
 
« Last Edit: 11/22/2011 03:45 AM by Patchouli »

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #49 on: 11/22/2011 04:26 AM »
If you want me to prove there is a purpose for space stations I don't know if I can.

If you want to argue they're useless keep going I'm not going to stop you.  ::)

Not my decision to make anyway.

If China has the only space station in the world so be it.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #50 on: 11/22/2011 05:23 AM »
If you want to argue they're useless keep going I'm not going to stop you.  ::)
That's not what I've been arguing at all. What I'm arguing is: If someone claims a station is needed, they ought be able to give a credible explanation of what specific objectives it is supposed to accomplish. "China is building one" does not cut it.

Personally, I'd think the future of stations after ISS depends on a bunch of unknowns, including:
- What comes out of ISS research. If it's hugely productive, then there's obvious motive for a follow on.
- Whether commercial crew is successful, and how much it costs.
- Whether commercial stations along the lines of what Bigelow plans are available, and how much they cost.
- What happens to NASAs HSF exploration program.

I do think a station built from SLS launched modules is extremely unlikely. If SLS flies an exploration mission, the chances of having money left over for 75 ton space station modules appears negligible.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #51 on: 11/22/2011 05:46 AM »
If you want to argue they're useless keep going I'm not going to stop you.  ::)
That's not what I've been arguing at all. What I'm arguing is: If someone claims a station is needed, they ought be able to give a credible explanation of what specific objectives it is supposed to accomplish. "China is building one" does not cut it.

Personally, I'd think the future of stations after ISS depends on a bunch of unknowns, including:
- What comes out of ISS research. If it's hugely productive, then there's obvious motive for a follow on.
- Whether commercial crew is successful, and how much it costs.
- Whether commercial stations along the lines of what Bigelow plans are available, and how much they cost.
- What happens to NASAs HSF exploration program.

I do think a station built from SLS launched modules is extremely unlikely. If SLS flies an exploration mission, the chances of having money left over for 75 ton space station modules appears negligible.
Nasa's budget has to change ( more money ). They have to spend their money wisely like a business does. For SLS for BEO and a future space station(s). Commercial built station in a modular design, modify as needed. Add the equipment inside or out that the customer wants whether they be added before or after launch in orbit. All life support installed before launch but replaceable in orbit.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #52 on: 11/22/2011 05:28 PM »
If you want to argue they're useless keep going I'm not going to stop you.  ::)
That's not what I've been arguing at all. What I'm arguing is: If someone claims a station is needed, they ought be able to give a credible explanation of what specific objectives it is supposed to accomplish. "China is building one" does not cut it.

Personally, I'd think the future of stations after ISS depends on a bunch of unknowns, including:
- What comes out of ISS research. If it's hugely productive, then there's obvious motive for a follow on.
- Whether commercial crew is successful, and how much it costs.
- Whether commercial stations along the lines of what Bigelow plans are available, and how much they cost.
- What happens to NASAs HSF exploration program.

I do think a station built from SLS launched modules is extremely unlikely. If SLS flies an exploration mission, the chances of having money left over for 75 ton space station modules appears negligible.

If money is short a 100mT monolithic station might be the cheaper solution.
I say 100mT because the SLS block II or III would be the available vehicle by the time ISS is retired.

Skylab was a very cheap program that flew during a time of funding short falls much worse then today's.
It was pretty much an S-IVB converted to habitation.
The modern equivalent should be much cheaper as they would not be inventing advanced ECLSS like they did for Skylab.
Plus there will be commercial vehicles which will make it's logistics a fraction of the cost.
Commercial crew and cargo are the real game changers here.
Of course Falcon Heavy could end up the LV of choice in that case the modules would be sized accordingly.

Fairing size would be a big limiting factor here which would pretty much drive use of expandable modules.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2011 05:32 PM by Patchouli »

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #53 on: 11/22/2011 05:50 PM »

Right now, the swingometer of political support is a drive towards a SHLV and deep space exploration. 

No question about the SHLV bit.  Whether there's a drive towards deep space exploration is still, IMO, somewhat to be determined.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #54 on: 11/22/2011 06:00 PM »

If money is short a 100mT monolithic station might be the cheaper solution.
I say 100mT because the SLS block II or III would be the available vehicle by the time ISS is retired.


You are making your standard unsubstantiated statements again.  You have no qualifications nor evidence to support that claim.

There is no ground infrastructure to support such a station.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #55 on: 11/23/2011 01:13 AM »

If money is short a 100mT monolithic station might be the cheaper solution.
I say 100mT because the SLS block II or III would be the available vehicle by the time ISS is retired.


You are making your standard unsubstantiated statements again.  You have no qualifications nor evidence to support that claim.

There is no ground infrastructure to support such a station.
Jim for ground infrastructure what is needed to support such a station, not including the HLV needed to launch such a large station?


Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #56 on: 11/23/2011 01:43 AM »

If money is short a 100mT monolithic station might be the cheaper solution.
I say 100mT because the SLS block II or III would be the available vehicle by the time ISS is retired.


You are making your standard unsubstantiated statements again.  You have no qualifications nor evidence to support that claim.

There is no ground infrastructure to support such a station.

Your claims despite being in the industry are every bit as unsubstantiated as there is little information on what the economic outlook will be that far down the road.
2025 could very well turn out to be a time of an economic boom.

No matter the economic outlook I don't think NASA is not going to give up on HSF any time soon it would be too nasty politically as that would send the message the US is on a downward spiral.
Russia went though an upheaval that made the 2009 economic melt down look insignificant and they keep their space program going.
They were even planning Mir II in the late 90s which became the Russian segment of ISS.
As for politics the only constant I know is the US government generally hates it when the US looks like it is falling behind anywhere be it military weapons or big science programs.

On the remark we don't have the ground infrastructure please elaborate.
Why can't the payload processing be done next to BLEO missions?
Many of the parts of a Mars or NEO mission are very much like the parts for a station.
As for ground uplinks we do have plenty of those Russia gets by on a fraction of what the US has.
if we do need more they're not that expensive.
The truth is we can't say what an ISS II will be at this point it may not even be international it could simply be a leased or purchased private station.
Looking at some of the posts maybe we need a general "ISS successor thread" to put things like an ISS redux with EELV class LVs and more outlandish proposals like having an RLV like Skylon do low level Von Braun style station construction , or argue is a new station even needed in the first place.
Though the latter is pretty far off topic it's not SLS or advanced concepts related at all but instead space policy.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 01:46 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #57 on: 11/23/2011 02:01 AM »


1.  Your claims despite being in the industry are every bit as unsubstantiated as there is little information on what the economic outlook will be that far down the road.
2025 could very well turn out to be a time of an economic boom.

2.

On the remark we don't have the ground infrastructure please elaborate.
Why can't the payload processing be done next to BLEO missions?


1.  Wrong and also, it has nothing to do with the economic outlook.  My claims are substantiated.   I don't pull things out of my butt and post them as you do.

2. Plain and simple, there is no way to get a 100 ton station to the launch site except by waterway.  And there are no 100 ton station production facilities anywhere in the country, much less by any waterways.

BLEO doesn't have 100 ton dry payloads, most of its mass is propellant.


Shuttle, Titan IV, EELV's, ISS, etc all used existing infrastructure.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 02:04 AM by Jim »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #58 on: 11/23/2011 02:33 AM »

Right now, the swingometer of political support is a drive towards a SHLV and deep space exploration. 

No question about the SHLV bit.  Whether there's a drive towards deep space exploration is still, IMO, somewhat to be determined.

Spot on.  Congress is clearly interested in a SD rocket program.  If it were seriously interested in BEO exploration, it would direct NASA to do that as specifically as it has told NASA to build SLS, and leave the engineers to decide what kind of rocket to use.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #59 on: 11/23/2011 03:16 AM »

1.  Wrong and also, it has nothing to do with the economic outlook.  My claims are substantiated.   I don't pull things out of my butt and post them as you do.

2. Plain and simple, there is no way to get a 100 ton station to the launch site except by waterway.  And there are no 100 ton station production facilities anywhere in the country, much less by any waterways.

BLEO doesn't have 100 ton dry payloads, most of its mass is propellant.


Shuttle, Titan IV, EELV's, ISS, etc all used existing infrastructure.

1. On economic and policy predictions trying to guess more then ten years down the road is pretty much pulling something out one's butt.
I will admit my 2025 economic prediction was just that but is every other prediction.

2. How was Skylab delivered to NASA?

As for production facilities why not have the primary hull made at an aircraft or rocket stage manufacturing facility?
The modules need not be manufactured the same way ISS's where and probably shouldn't be in the exact same manner as that was found to be costly.

On getting it to and from the barge there are commercial solutions.
The oil industry moves even heavier still relatively fragile objects on a daily biases.
Just stick it in a custom container to keep the rain off and put it on a Mammoet.

A second more crazy option would be a cargo container on the top of the 747-LCF.
Strip it as much as possible to keep the weight down and load all the racks and stuff at whatever building is being used for BLEO mission processing.
It probably does not need any better clean room requirements then the Shuttle's did.

An SLS BLEO program is likely going to have many parts too big to fit inside even the largest cargo aircraft even if they are under 50mT so there will be a need for outside the box transport solutions anyway.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 03:32 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 612
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #60 on: 11/23/2011 03:25 AM »
Quote
2. Plain and simple, there is no way to get a 100 ton station to the launch site except by waterway.  And there are no 100 ton station production facilities anywhere in the country, much less by any waterways.

BLEO doesn't have 100 ton dry payloads, most of its mass is propellant.


Shuttle, Titan IV, EELV's, ISS, etc all used existing infrastructure
.


Good point Jim.  If you don't mind me asking a question, what is the largest payloads that can be supported with existing infrastructure?  How difficult would be to increase it?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #61 on: 11/23/2011 03:29 AM »
2. Plain and simple, there is no way to get a 100 ton station to the launch site except by waterway.  And there are no 100 ton station production facilities anywhere in the country, much less by any waterways.

BLEO doesn't have 100 ton dry payloads, most of its mass is propellant.


Shuttle, Titan IV, EELV's, ISS, etc all used existing infrastructure.

Good point Jim.  If you don't mind me asking a question, what is the largest payloads that can be supported with existing infrastructure?  How difficult would be to increase it?
[/quote]

With no assembly at the launch site, Shuttle payload bay (C-5C transportable).

Using foreign aircraft (Dreamlifter is not available for hire), Beluga or An-124 might get you something larger, but a new container would be required and then there is getting that new container from the factory to the airport.  Then there is the matter of test facilities, thermovac chambers, acoustic cells, vibe tables, etc.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #62 on: 11/23/2011 03:32 AM »
For those who question the need to compete the advanced boosters, but are interested in considering massive payloads, it might be useful to look at the limitation imposed by the transportation infrastructure between the VAB and the pad.  The mass of the propellant that powers liquid boosters wouldn't be carried by the crawler-transporter; presumably at least some of that mass budget would then available for the payload.
-- sdsds --

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #63 on: 11/23/2011 03:49 AM »
For those who question the need to compete the advanced boosters, but are interested in considering massive payloads, it might be useful to look at the limitation imposed by the transportation infrastructure between the VAB and the pad.  The mass of the propellant that powers liquid boosters wouldn't be carried by the crawler-transporter; presumably at least some of that mass budget would then available for the payload.

That does seem to be an over looked problem they'll have to address.

How will a large lander find it's way to the VAB how will large aeroshell sections be handled?

The SLS design team needs to look into that and the infrastructure costs should be weighed with an SHLV.

A Mars Hab is close to the dry masses being discussed here and probably a bigger pain to transport due it possibly being a wide squat shape.

Air transport probably will be out of the question.

It is not insurmountable they did it once in 1973 though Skylab was only 6.6M wide.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 03:50 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #64 on: 11/23/2011 03:52 AM »
No, a Mars Hab wouldn't have a dry weight of anywhere near 100 dry tons. We don't even have the EDL technology (even when scaled up to larger fairing sizes) to safely land something much greater than a few tons, let alone 100 dry tons!!! It'd plow into the Martian soil. No, a Mars Hab will have to be much less massive than that.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 04:49 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 612
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #65 on: 11/23/2011 03:53 AM »
Quote
With no assembly at the launch site, Shuttle payload bay (C-5C transportable).

Using foreign aircraft (Dreamlifter is not available for hire), Beluga or An-124 might get you something larger, but a new container would be required and then there is getting that new container from the factory to the airport.  Then there is the matter of test facilities, thermovac chambers, acoustic cells, vibe tables, etc.


Thanks.  None of those upgrades have even been considered, seems like we'll be at Shuttle payload for the foreseeable future.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 03:54 AM by Khadgars »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #66 on: 11/23/2011 03:54 AM »
No, a Mars Hab wouldn't have a dry weight of anywhere near 100 tons. We don't even have the EDL technology (even when scaled up to larger fairing sizes) to safely land something much greater than a few tons, let alone 100 tons!!! It'd plow into the Martian soil. No, a Mars Hab will have to be much less massive than that.

Landing weight for a hab often can be around 60 mT entry which is close to 70mT being discussed here.
http://atomicrockets.posterous.com/mars-design-reference-mission-10-1993
Zurbin's Mars Direct got the landed mass down to around 30mT though NASA thought it was an overly optimistic number.
What shows up for assembly at the processing facility may be only 20 to 40 mT until the equipment is loaded but the same could be said for the Station module being discussed here.
A lot of the mass is not the hull but all the stuff that goes into it.

Another thing I just realised that I missed in early posts is the launch weight of a modern Skylab type module need not be as much even if it's significantly larger as Skylab was launched fully stocked and outfitted.

I gave it some thought and an ISS II module could be launched bare bones and outfitted on orbit.

Though what they launch will probably be driven by what the LV they have available can do even with the above ground transport and processing issues.
Skylab was to launch on two IBs but ended up on the INT-21 when there was a spare Saturn V.

« Last Edit: 11/23/2011 04:25 AM by Patchouli »

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #67 on: 11/23/2011 09:13 AM »
A successor to ISS will not break the banks (or NASA's budget) like ISS almost did. Here are some obvious key points that should keep the cost of such a successor inline:

- Lower R&D cost. The life support systems, Common Berthing Mechinism design, the gyroscopes, the solar arrays, trusses, etc. have already been designed (for ISS), so much of that could be reused. Also, systems being designed for SLS might also find a use.

- 70 plus ton modules can carry pretty much a mostly completed station. This means less launches, less modules to build, less redundancy.

- Dual use / Dual support / Dual purpose Exploration habitat modules. ISS-2 should be designed from the get-go to support Exploration missions as its primary mission.

- By this time, the commercial space program in LEO should be beginning to blossom. Additional services, capacity, and capabilities could be purchased from the commercial providers, lowering costs.

-

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #68 on: 11/23/2011 02:45 PM »

- Lower R&D cost. The life support systems, Common Berthing Mechinism design, the gyroscopes, the solar arrays, trusses, etc. have already been designed (for ISS), so much of that could be reused.


Not true, they would have been produced over 20 years ago.  The people and facilities and subcontractors would be gone.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #69 on: 11/23/2011 02:46 PM »

- 70 plus ton modules can carry pretty much a mostly completed station. This means less launches, less modules to build, less redundancy.


See my other posts, they will not be cheaper

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10628
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2787
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #70 on: 11/24/2011 02:33 AM »
There will be no money for NASA space stations

It's nice to know that "Back to the Future" was not just a scifi film and that people can actually jump into the future, read the paper and then come back to us and tell us what the future actually holds for us.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #71 on: 11/24/2011 02:55 AM »
There will be no money for NASA space stations

It's nice to know that "Back to the Future" was not just a scifi film and that people can actually jump into the future, read the paper and then come back to us and tell us what the future actually holds for us.
You know, what I wrote was short enough that you could have kept the whole context:
Quote
There will be no money for NASA space stations, or much of anything else if we actually to the point of using SLS for exploration.  (edit: based on historical funding levels...)
::)
Should be pretty clear I wasn't intending that as an absolute statement. It's conditional on SLS / BEO actually happening, and NASA funding following historical tends.

I don't see any reason beyond wishful thinking to believe NASA will get massive budget increases, but I could certainly be wrong...

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #72 on: 11/24/2011 03:48 AM »
Skylab was to launch on two IBs but ended up on the INT-21 when there was a spare Saturn V.

Actually, it was more that the Saturn V allowed Skylab to be heavier and fully fitted out from the beginning, and therefore more capable.  Turning the wet S-IVB into a workshop was also a little more difficult than originally anticipated.  See Skylab: A Chronology, particularly the entry for 21 May 1969.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #73 on: 11/26/2011 07:21 PM »
Skylab was to launch on two IBs but ended up on the INT-21 when there was a spare Saturn V.

Actually, it was more that the Saturn V allowed Skylab to be heavier and fully fitted out from the beginning, and therefore more capable.  Turning the wet S-IVB into a workshop was also a little more difficult than originally anticipated.  See Skylab: A Chronology, particularly the entry for 21 May 1969.
Yah I'm not sure if they could have pulled off the wet workshop in 1973 you'd almost need the space shuttle for that kind of orbital refit.
Plus could they make everything able to fit though the Apollo docking adapter?
It seems over all the change was the right one and maybe even saved the Skylab program.


 
« Last Edit: 11/26/2011 07:25 PM by Patchouli »

Offline Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #74 on: 11/26/2011 08:18 PM »
Seems kinda hokey. The heaviest US modules of the ISS only weigh about 14 tons. They weren't designed with the intent of maxing out the payload capability of the launcher.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #75 on: 11/26/2011 10:39 PM »
.
Skylab was to launch on two IBs but ended up on the INT-21 when there was a spare Saturn V.


Skylab was launched on a two stage Saturn V and not an INT-21.  INT-21 had other mods such as moving the IU to top of the second stage

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #76 on: 11/28/2011 11:10 AM »
Seems kinda hokey. The heaviest US modules of the ISS only weigh about 14 tons. They weren't designed with the intent of maxing out the payload capability of the launcher.

That is the module itself not including hardware to outfit the module. They were launched with as much internal hardware as possible.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #77 on: 11/28/2011 11:32 AM »
Since this thread is about the ISS maybe international partners would want to build a huge module?

NASA pays for the SLS to launch it and gets full use of it in orbit.

You will only need the one to make quite a nice sized space station. The rest could be made out of smaller modules or inflatables.

I think many countries would love the opportunity to put more astronauts in orbit on a more consistant basis.

Now Satoshi is back on Earth (miss him already) JAXA has that big module with nobody up there doing research. The stuff he was doing related to cancer did sound important.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22510
  • Liked: 842
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #78 on: 11/28/2011 01:01 PM »
Skylab was to launch on two IBs but ended up on the INT-21 when there was a spare Saturn V.

Minor nitpicking, but Skylab was launched on a two stage Saturn V rather than INT-21, as the avionics were still on the third stage (Skylab) and not the S-II.
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #79 on: 11/28/2011 01:16 PM »

Now Satoshi is back on Earth (miss him already) JAXA has that big module with nobody up there doing research. The stuff he was doing related to cancer did sound important.

The remaining astronauts take over for him.  Just because an international partner doesn't have an astronaut onboard doesn't mean research in their modules stop.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #80 on: 11/28/2011 01:28 PM »
Ok thanks Jim. That is good to know  8)

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS-launched 70-ton module ISS successor
« Reply #81 on: 11/28/2011 01:35 PM »
And just because Japan have an astronaut up there doesn't mean that 100% of his time is dedicated to japanese science.

Tags: