Abandon the space station?

Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to abandon
the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller space station
in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science. If we use
the shuttle to boost a small space station closer (orbitwise) to Hubble
we can have both, a space stetion (USA) and the hubble.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull wrote:

The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science.

Here's a clue for you since you seem to lack one;

It's quite common for unfinished facilities to produce very little of
their intended end product.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science.

Here's a clue for you since you seem to lack one;

It's quite common for unfinished facilities to produce very little of
their intended end product.

D.

Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return, it and the shuttle
are co dependent on one another too.

The best thing that could happen is scraping both programs and moving on.

Hallerb wrote:

Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return, it and the
shuttle are co dependent on one another too.

Just how much science return do you expect to get from ISS? Down here on
Earth, most small science labs don't generate large returns. Given that the
ISS is a pretty small science lab, it's unreasonable to expect large,
publicity-generating science returns to come from it. It's the nature of
scientific research.

The thing that the ISS *does* do well is that it allows experiments to
operate in extended periods of microgravity, something that simply can't be
done on the ground. That's the station's niche. We will learn things from
ISS research, but they'll probably be in fields that most people aren't
interested in (or even aware of). That doesn't mean that the research isn't
valuable.

The best thing that could happen is scraping both programs and moving on.

Why?

--Chris

Nick Hull wrote:

Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to abandon
the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller space station
in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science. If we use
the shuttle to boost a small space station closer (orbitwise) to Hubble
we can have both, a space stetion (USA) and the hubble.

Because of the constant stream of junk that emanates from
ISS (or any other space station for that matter) it would
be a bad idea to have it near Hubble or any other space
telescope. It would be only a matter of time before the
mirror was contaminated by the gases and other bits of
trash that leaked from the station.

Besides, ISS will likely be deorbited just two or three
years after its completion and the end of the Shuttle program
anyway. By 2014-2015 the US should be completely out of
the manned space business and the space science business.
It shouldn't be a problem though, as China and ESA should
be fully up to speed by then and we can beg for handouts
from their programs.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Just where did you get the idea that the ISS is in a poor orbit to please
the Russians. The ISS's orbit is inclined much more than the HST to make it
easier for the Russians to get to it. The ISS also passes over Russian
territory whereas the HST does not.

The low inclination or the HST makes it easier for the US to get to to it
and much harder for the Russians.

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to abandon
the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller space station
in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science. If we use
the shuttle to boost a small space station closer (orbitwise) to Hubble
we can have both, a space stetion (USA) and the hubble.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Hallerb wrote:
Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return, it and the shuttle
are co dependent on one another too.

The ISS has already yielded many valuable returns. All the R&D done for its
construction will serve for long duration ships to Mars. NASA has also
learned, to some extent, to work with other partners who have different ways
of working.

On the station itself, much is being learned about reliability of various
systems in 0g indoors as well as harsh environments outdoors.

Nasa also learned to change its cast-in-stone-procedures to allow a 2 man crew
to EVA.

The mismanagement resulting in huge cost overruns (or gross underestimation of
costs depending on how you look at it) has also taught/forced NASA to
reevaluate how it manages those programs.

NASA is also learning how to manage crews in space (no micromanagement of
schedule, how much recreation time is needed, how much time it takes to
perform certain tasks (many of which are underestimated by folks on ground who
prepare workload schedule) etc.

All that is far more valuable than growing crystals because that is experience
and information that will serve in the future.

Bill Barto wrote:
The low inclination or the HST makes it easier for the US to get to to it
and much harder for the Russians.

"easier" isn't quite the word. A lower inclination gives launchers from KSC
greater cargo capacity to such an orbit, as well as longer launch windows.

Forgetting Cuba and landing site for a minute, should NASA want to launch the
shuttle to a 5° orbit, would the 23° deviation to the south cost more fuel
than a 23° deviation to the north ?

(when launching to station, the KSC intercepts the orbital plane, but
launching to a lesser inclination, KSC never intersects).

So, if the Europeans decide to build their own space station sent from Korou,
would they decide to pay a penalty hit to launch to 28° so that NASA could
participate, or would they leave NASA out ?

I think this works both ways.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 03:07:31 -0400, John Doe wrote:


The ISS has already yielded many valuable returns. All the R&D done for its
construction will serve for long duration ships to Mars. NASA has also
learned, to some extent, to work with other partners who have different ways
of working.

The overall prob with ISS is the same one that NASA has always had,
over selling a project and what we ultimately end up with is a mere
shadow of what was promised at ten times the cost.
IMHO for now, forget planning for manned moon and mars missions and
concentrate on building a craft that can get to orbit reliably and
cheaply. When that's achieved build a true space station that's not
undermanned and working on a shoestring and a prayer.
Then and only then start thinking about manned missions beyond LEO.
From what I've seen so far it's the same old story, we're making grand
plans that will ultimately be scaled back to a ridiculous extent or
canceled altogether, after we've spent billions and wasted even many
more years.

Botch

The best thing that could happen is scraping both programs and moving on.

Why?


If you freed up the $ being spent on ISS ^ shuttle they would quickly fund a
replacement manned orbiter and enough left over to get out of LEO./

As is they are a same old same old program/


Just how much science return do you expect to get from ISS? Down here on
Earth, most small science labs don't generate large returns. Given that the

We could of done much the same by putting up a man TENDED station.

Visited by the shuttle perodically like 5 times a year for resupply and repairs
microgravity reseatrch without people moving about would of been better, and
overall cost less too. have the experiments run telerobitically from the ground
by rotating shifts of researchers.

NASA wanted a station, the politicians wanted a exhibition of cooperation with
russia and they both got what they wanted.

Sadly the station lacks science....