How (Not) To Design a Space Station

[davamanra]

Rather than positing an imaginary super-heavy-lift launcher with a wet workshop stage (the continued nonexistance of either of which dooms the station), smaller modules have advantages even of a SHL vehicle is available. They can be launched on a range of vehicles giving flexibility and redundancy in launching (not tied to one vehicle), can be clustered for one launch in the event that a SHL vehicle is available, and by using a standardised 'base' module design can be produced in bulk at potentially a lower cost than a handful of bespoke modules.
The lesson of the ISS should be: "Yes, but size the modules so you are not locked into a single launch system, and try not to make them so unique"

I am an advocate of SHLLV for many reasons. 

1.  With respect to space stations, I don't know the exact costs of sending the Mir modules into orbit, but even adjusted for inflation, they were more than launching Skylab, with comparable internal volume, on one Saturn V.  Same thing with ISS.  It weighs 500 tons and has an internal volume of 35,000 ft^3.  A comparable space station could be built using only 3 SHLLV's like the Saturn V.

2.  Granted, several smaller LV's can be used to launch several smaller modules, but a single SHLLV can also launch several smaller modules as well as launch larger modules that the smaller LV's cannot.

3.  With respect to payloads like the JWST and similar bulky payloads, it would be necessary to design and perform these complex unfolding procedures in order to function.  Even though I hope JWST unfolds properly and is able to carry out its mission, I fear that something might go wrong.  With a SHLLV a payload like JWST would not have to be anywhere near as complex or weigh as little as it does.  It could have been launched years earlier and for a fraction of the cost and with less chance of malfunction if it were launched on a SHLLV.

4.  With respect to missions back to the Moon, establishing a LOP-G in lunar orbit as well as landing payloads on the moon would be much more economic and simpler using an SHLLV, especially since the largest part of the payload will be propellant.

5.  With respect to interplanetary missions, reasons #3 and#4 apply.

6.  With respect to missions to Mars, especially manned missions, reason #4 especially applies.

7.  Granted, SHLLV's initially can be expensive, but, as I propose, developing a production line infrastructure and developing a space program around this strategy the long term costs will be very affordable.

8.  There are other situations where an SHLLV can have advantages over smaller LV'S, it is just a matter of considering it as an option.

At least we are in agreement with respect to specialized, unique modules.  Starting with a standardized basic design and then fitting them out for a particular purpose would be very economical.   

Most of Skylab was useless volume.

An SHLV is a waste to use on a space station

Politically Skylab was a second slap in the face to the USSR.  We put a space station in orbit that was 3 times the size of their Salyuts.

Psychologically that volume would be precious for a larger crew for extended stays in space.

Technologically it was a plausible design to be used as a habitat module for a mission to Mars.

Economically a SHLLV was able to put a space station into orbit on one launch as opposed to claustrophobic Mir which took at least 5 launches with only a slightly larger internal volume.  Granted, a Saturn V may have been more expensive than two of the LV's that put Mir into orbit, but not all of them, but the launch preparation for a Saturn V would only be slightly greater than that of a single Mir module launch. 

As I stated in an earlier post, I have several reasons for advocating the development of a SHLLV.  I reviewed your thread about assembling an ISS type space station using EELV's rather than Shuttles.  It was very interesting, but unless either strategy is implemented, BOTH of our ideas are nothing more than "speculative fiction" as Blackstar put it.

You are an advocate of EELV's.  You have your reasons.  Great.  I am an advocate of SHLLV's and I have my reasons.  Neither of us are wrong, we simply have different perspectives.         

[Coastal Ron]

I was advocating the best of ALL of these concepts.  Modular construction without limited expandability.  Yes, we learned a lot from ISS, but we also learned a lot from Mir and Skylab.

Skylab and Mir were both prototypes, and their job was to learn not only what worked, but what did NOT work. And the ISS was the result of what America learned from Skylab.

I agree with you about modular construction, but I think that larger modules, like Skylab, have more versatility.  Also Skylab was a converted S-IVB Stage, so the basic Skylab design was already based on proven technology.

What "proven technology"? That is a meaningless statement when you are only talking about an empty propellant tank.

I also advocate the use of proven module designs as the basis for new modules, but in order to reduce costs even further, design as few different modules as possible and manufacture their basic designs on a production line basis.

No need to BS here, since I've spent decades in the manufacturing world, so I understand what can and cannot be done with production lines. And I also understand why "wet labs" are fiction, and Skylab was mainly wasted space.

Plus you are confusing size with usability, and you are also confusing big rockets with affordability.

Do you know why we haven't been back to the Moon since Apollo 17? It isn't because we forgot how to build large rockets, it is because of the cost of building large rockets.

If you cost out the construction of the ISS you'll see that a significant part of it was because of the cost of the Shuttle, which averaged $1.2B per flight. But the payloads the Shuttle was lifting could now launch on commercial launchers costing 1/10th of that, significantly lowering the cost of the next generation of modular space stations.

In fact, I would like to update my previous concept.  Using the Saturn V as a SHLLV template, it is conceivable to stack an S-II stage converted to a DWS on top of a Saturn V first and second stage and launch TWO components into orbit.

I hate to say this, but you have no sense of money. None. You seem to think that building government rockets is free, and that operating them is free too. They are not.

The key to lowering the cost of expanding humanity out into space is what we already rely upon here on Earth - commodity transportation systems moving modular cargo. And if you think about it, the largest buildings in the world are made using standard trucks that can navigate on standard streets, so we don't need an SHLLV to build increasingly larger structures in space, we just need to lower the cost of getting payload to space.

Given this basis, we could design and mass produce the first stages to be at least partially reusable by having them soft-land in the ocean, and then we mass produce second stages and use them as components for the space station.         

Not sure if you keep up with the news, but a company called SpaceX is eliminating the need for the U.S. Government to indulge your SHLLV fantasy. Maybe you should check them out?   

[libra]

Skylab is an oddity in space stations (brief) history. Since every single other, from Salyut 1 to ISS DOS-8 (at least) is a... Salyut offspring, constrained by Shuttle and Proton diameters / payload of 15 feet.

Skylab is also an oddity in the sense it was a one-shot silver-bullet.

Consider the following facts
- needs a $1billion+ Saturn V to launch it
- is built to last 28+56+84 days in orbit: barely half a year
- no thrusters to keep it in orbit or desorbit it properly
- unlike all the other it is a rocket stage turned space station, with all the caveats

Salyut-1 wasn't very spectacular in comparison, but over the next three decades it grew into Mir and then the ISS russian segment.

Skylab went nowhere... dead end space dinosaur.

[Jim]

Rather than positing an imaginary super-heavy-lift launcher with a wet workshop stage (the continued nonexistance of either of which dooms the station), smaller modules have advantages even of a SHL vehicle is available. They can be launched on a range of vehicles giving flexibility and redundancy in launching (not tied to one vehicle), can be clustered for one launch in the event that a SHL vehicle is available, and by using a standardised 'base' module design can be produced in bulk at potentially a lower cost than a handful of bespoke modules.
The lesson of the ISS should be: "Yes, but size the modules so you are not locked into a single launch system, and try not to make them so unique"

I am an advocate of SHLLV for many reasons. 

1.  With respect to space stations, I don't know the exact costs of sending the Mir modules into orbit, but even adjusted for inflation, they were more than launching Skylab, with comparable internal volume, on one Saturn V.  Same thing with ISS.  It weighs 500 tons and has an internal volume of 35,000 ft^3.  A comparable space station could be built using only 3 SHLLV's like the Saturn V.

2.  Granted, several smaller LV's can be used to launch several smaller modules, but a single SHLLV can also launch several smaller modules as well as launch larger modules that the smaller LV's cannot.

3.  With respect to payloads like the JWST and similar bulky payloads, it would be necessary to design and perform these complex unfolding procedures in order to function.  Even though I hope JWST unfolds properly and is able to carry out its mission, I fear that something might go wrong.  With a SHLLV a payload like JWST would not have to be anywhere near as complex or weigh as little as it does.  It could have been launched years earlier and for a fraction of the cost and with less chance of malfunction if it were launched on a SHLLV.

4.  With respect to missions back to the Moon, establishing a LOP-G in lunar orbit as well as landing payloads on the moon would be much more economic and simpler using an SHLLV, especially since the largest part of the payload will be propellant.

5.  With respect to interplanetary missions, reasons #3 and#4 apply.

6.  With respect to missions to Mars, especially manned missions, reason #4 especially applies.

7.  Granted, SHLLV's initially can be expensive, but, as I propose, developing a production line infrastructure and developing a space program around this strategy the long term costs will be very affordable.

8.  There are other situations where an SHLLV can have advantages over smaller LV'S, it is just a matter of considering it as an option.

At least we are in agreement with respect to specialized, unique modules.  Starting with a standardized basic design and then fitting them out for a particular purpose would be very economical.   

Most of Skylab was useless volume.

An SHLV is a waste to use on a space station

Politically Skylab was a second slap in the face to the USSR.  We put a space station in orbit that was 3 times the size of their Salyuts.

Psychologically that volume would be precious for a larger crew for extended stays in space.

Technologically it was a plausible design to be used as a habitat module for a mission to Mars.

Economically a SHLLV was able to put a space station into orbit on one launch as opposed to claustrophobic Mir which took at least 5 launches with only a slightly larger internal volume.  Granted, a Saturn V may have been more expensive than two of the LV's that put Mir into orbit, but not all of them, but the launch preparation for a Saturn V would only be slightly greater than that of a single Mir module launch. 

As I stated in an earlier post, I have several reasons for advocating the development of a SHLLV.  I reviewed your thread about assembling an ISS type space station using EELV's rather than Shuttles.  It was very interesting, but unless either strategy is implemented, BOTH of our ideas are nothing more than "speculative fiction" as Blackstar put it.

You are an advocate of EELV's.  You have your reasons.  Great.  I am an advocate of SHLLV's and I have my reasons.  Neither of us are wrong, we simply have different perspectives.         

None of your arguments are valid.  There is no justification for any of them.

[Jim]

Rather than positing an imaginary super-heavy-lift launcher with a wet workshop stage (the continued nonexistance of either of which dooms the station), smaller modules have advantages even of a SHL vehicle is available. They can be launched on a range of vehicles giving flexibility and redundancy in launching (not tied to one vehicle), can be clustered for one launch in the event that a SHL vehicle is available, and by using a standardised 'base' module design can be produced in bulk at potentially a lower cost than a handful of bespoke modules.
The lesson of the ISS should be: "Yes, but size the modules so you are not locked into a single launch system, and try not to make them so unique"

I am an advocate of SHLLV for many reasons. 

1.  With respect to space stations, I don't know the exact costs of sending the Mir modules into orbit, but even adjusted for inflation, they were more than launching Skylab, with comparable internal volume, on one Saturn V.  Same thing with ISS.  It weighs 500 tons and has an internal volume of 35,000 ft^3.  A comparable space station could be built using only 3 SHLLV's like the Saturn V.

2.  Granted, several smaller LV's can be used to launch several smaller modules, but a single SHLLV can also launch several smaller modules as well as launch larger modules that the smaller LV's cannot.

3.  With respect to payloads like the JWST and similar bulky payloads, it would be necessary to design and perform these complex unfolding procedures in order to function.  Even though I hope JWST unfolds properly and is able to carry out its mission, I fear that something might go wrong.  With a SHLLV a payload like JWST would not have to be anywhere near as complex or weigh as little as it does.  It could have been launched years earlier and for a fraction of the cost and with less chance of malfunction if it were launched on a SHLLV.

4.  With respect to missions back to the Moon, establishing a LOP-G in lunar orbit as well as landing payloads on the moon would be much more economic and simpler using an SHLLV, especially since the largest part of the payload will be propellant.

5.  With respect to interplanetary missions, reasons #3 and#4 apply.

6.  With respect to missions to Mars, especially manned missions, reason #4 especially applies.

7.  Granted, SHLLV's initially can be expensive, but, as I propose, developing a production line infrastructure and developing a space program around this strategy the long term costs will be very affordable.

8.  There are other situations where an SHLLV can have advantages over smaller LV'S, it is just a matter of considering it as an option.

At least we are in agreement with respect to specialized, unique modules.  Starting with a standardized basic design and then fitting them out for a particular purpose would be very economical.   

Most of Skylab was useless volume.

An SHLV is a waste to use on a space station

Politically Skylab was a second slap in the face to the USSR.  We put a space station in orbit that was 3 times the size of their Salyuts.

Psychologically that volume would be precious for a larger crew for extended stays in space.

Technologically it was a plausible design to be used as a habitat module for a mission to Mars.

Economically a SHLLV was able to put a space station into orbit on one launch as opposed to claustrophobic Mir which took at least 5 launches with only a slightly larger internal volume.  Granted, a Saturn V may have been more expensive than two of the LV's that put Mir into orbit, but not all of them, but the launch preparation for a Saturn V would only be slightly greater than that of a single Mir module launch. 

As I stated in an earlier post, I have several reasons for advocating the development of a SHLLV.  I reviewed your thread about assembling an ISS type space station using EELV's rather than Shuttles.  It was very interesting, but unless either strategy is implemented, BOTH of our ideas are nothing more than "speculative fiction" as Blackstar put it.

You are an advocate of EELV's.  You have your reasons.  Great.  I am an advocate of SHLLV's and I have my reasons.  Neither of us are wrong, we simply have different perspectives.         

None of your arguments are valid.  There is no justification for any of them.

It was not a plausible design. For a mars habitat.  It was too big.

There is no reason for a production line For a govt SHLLV. There won’t be another large govt station

My thread was just to show that the shuttle wasn’t necessary for ISS construction.  Nothing more.

[davamanra]

Do these concepts sound like they're too ambitious, too expensive, take too long, "speculative fiction?"  Well, in the case of the NASA of today that might very well be true.  Fine.  It is however not speculative fiction with respect to companies like SpaceX.  It really is a shame that the ambition, optimism, passion, inspiration, creativity, innovation and determination of the NASA of yesteryear is gone.  I guess NASA has been relegated to the role of armchair quarterback rather than actually being a participant.  Oh well.     

[Coastal Ron]

Do these concepts sound like they're too ambitious, too expensive, take too long, "speculative fiction?"

I don't know what "concepts" you are talking about, but the cost of doing things in space is what has kept humanities ambitions in check. So the only entities that are going to expand humanity out into space are those that focus on cost, not complexity.

Well, in the case of the NASA of today that might very well be true.  Fine.

I don't believe that at all. However NASA is a U.S. Government agency that is tasked by the President and Congress to do things THEY want done, not what the NASA employees want to do. And that is the way it has always been with NASA, so nothing new.

But NASA attracts and trains LOTS of smart people, and part of NASA's job is to imagine what could be done, given the resources. Future ideation. And NASA still does that very well, it is just that our government is not interested in doing much in space these days - which is fine, since that allows room for the private sector to fill the void (so to speak).

It is however not speculative fiction with respect to companies like SpaceX.  It really is a shame that the ambition, optimism, passion, inspiration, creativity, innovation and determination of the NASA of yesteryear is gone.

It isn't. You are confusing what NASA is capable of doing with what NASA is funded to do. They are NOT the same.

Do you even know what NASA was really created to do? I suggest you read the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended). Because NASA is doing all of that today, and our government wants NASA to continuing doing it. So I'm not sure why you think NASA is such a failure.

[Jim]

Do these concepts sound like they're too ambitious, too expensive, take too long, "speculative fiction?"  Well, in the case of the NASA of today that might very well be true.  Fine.  It is however not speculative fiction with respect to companies like SpaceX.  It really is a shame that the ambition, optimism, passion, inspiration, creativity, innovation and determination of the NASA of yesteryear is gone.  I guess NASA has been relegated to the role of armchair quarterback rather than actually being a participant.  Oh well.   

Not even SpaceX wants to deal with nonsense like this.

[davamanra]

If Elon Musk were to have come to this forum for inspiration for his "ridiculous" "speculative fiction," he never would have gotten SpaceX off the ground.  Thankfully, he found people with some foresight to to truly see what is possible.

[JoeFromRIUSA]

Do these concepts sound like they're too ambitious, too expensive, take too long, "speculative fiction?"  Well, in the case of the NASA of today that might very well be true.  Fine.  It is however not speculative fiction with respect to companies like SpaceX.  It really is a shame that the ambition, optimism, passion, inspiration, creativity, innovation and determination of the NASA of yesteryear is gone.  I guess NASA has been relegated to the role of armchair quarterback rather than actually being a participant.  Oh well.   

Not even SpaceX wants to deal with nonsense like this.

He's doing it again

[davamanra]

Do these concepts sound like they're too ambitious, too expensive, take too long, "speculative fiction?"  Well, in the case of the NASA of today that might very well be true.  Fine.  It is however not speculative fiction with respect to companies like SpaceX.  It really is a shame that the ambition, optimism, passion, inspiration, creativity, innovation and determination of the NASA of yesteryear is gone.  I guess NASA has been relegated to the role of armchair quarterback rather than actually being a participant.  Oh well.   

Not even SpaceX wants to deal with nonsense like this.

He's doing it again

Yep.  And yet the moderators allow this type of behavior to go on time after time after time.

[Blackstar]

As I stated in an earlier post, I have several reasons for advocating the development of a SHLLV.

But that's not a history issue. Unless you're trolling, you really should take this to another thread that is not in the history section. It doesn't belong here.

And if you are trolling, well, don't.

[Coastal Ron]

If Elon Musk were to have come to this forum for inspiration for his "ridiculous" "speculative fiction," he never would have gotten SpaceX off the ground...

This particular forum is "How (Not) To Design a Space Station", so you should be expecting lessons learned, not "inspiration".

Adjust your expectations accordingly... 

[davamanra]

For those who want to have a civil discussion about space stations I'm all ears. 

For those who just want to demean, dismiss or criticize the ideas of others, calling them "ridiculous," "speculative fiction," etc. and engage in what I consider to be trolling, "well, don't."

[Jim]

For those who want to have a civil discussion about space stations I'm all ears. 

For those who just want to demean, dismiss or criticize the ideas of others, calling them "ridiculous," "speculative fiction," etc. and engage in what I consider to be trolling, "well, don't."

Not how to design a station is not using wet stages.

[davamanra]

For those who want to have a civil discussion about space stations I'm all ears. 

For those who just want to demean, dismiss or criticize the ideas of others, calling them "ridiculous," "speculative fiction," etc. and engage in what I consider to be trolling, "well, don't."

Not how to design a station is not using wet stages.

Double negative, so "how to design a station is using wet stages."  That's what I've been saying all along!

[Blackstar]

And this is trolling.

I suggest that people demonstrate some restraint and just let this thread die.

[libra]

I am an advocate of SHLLV for many reasons

Are you Publiusr is disguise ? That seemingly never-ending argument with The Jim sounds familiar, from another forum... well many of them, actually.