-
#40 by hop on 21 Nov, 2011 17:38
-
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?
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...)
If there was one, I missed it. It is all about Orion and exploration and using SLS in support of this.
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.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?!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. -
#41 by RocketmanUS on 21 Nov, 2011 20:34
-
Is there a thread on Beyond ISS
What there might be after ISS and it's uses and purpose.
-
#42 by spectre9 on 22 Nov, 2011 02:42
-
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. -
#43 by Patchouli on 22 Nov, 2011 02:58
-
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. -
#44 by hop on 22 Nov, 2011 03:20
-
You already know what you've posted is a bit silly.
I'm just extrapolating your claimQuoteInfact that argument of "we have to have one too" does seem valid.
to it's logical conclusion.QuoteA 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. -
#45 by Patchouli on 22 Nov, 2011 03:25
-
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.
-
#46 by dks13827 on 22 Nov, 2011 03:38
-
"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. -
#47 by Nascent Ascent on 22 Nov, 2011 03:43
-
I'd rather see a moon station than another orbiting space station.
-
#48 by Patchouli on 22 Nov, 2011 03:44
-
"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.
-
#49 by spectre9 on 22 Nov, 2011 04:26
-
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. -
#50 by hop on 22 Nov, 2011 05:23
-
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. -
#51 by RocketmanUS on 22 Nov, 2011 05:46
-
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.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. -
#52 by Patchouli on 22 Nov, 2011 17:28
-
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. -
#53 by ChileVerde on 22 Nov, 2011 17:50
-
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. -
#54 by Jim on 22 Nov, 2011 18:00
-
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. -
#55 by RocketmanUS on 23 Nov, 2011 01:13
-
Jim for ground infrastructure what is needed to support such a station, not including the HLV needed to launch such a large station?
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.
-
#56 by Patchouli on 23 Nov, 2011 01:43
-
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. -
#57 by Jim on 23 Nov, 2011 02:01
-
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. -
#58 by Proponent on 23 Nov, 2011 02:33
-
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. -
#59 by Patchouli on 23 Nov, 2011 03:16
-
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.
