Commercial Space Station as a replacement for ISS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:50:31 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!

Show me the money.

Brian

Alan Erskine wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!

I want to see a big wheel in orbit with it's own gravity.

--
All is as it is.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
nd.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!


Show me the money and then the hardware. Otherwise, it's more hot air from
those who think Commercial Space is the best thing since sliced bread.

On 11/04/2011 3:36 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
nd.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!


Show me the money and then the hardware. Otherwise, it's more hot air from
those who think Commercial Space is the best thing since sliced bread.



Most people said similar things a few years ago about Spacex and the
Falcon 9.

Matt Wiser wrote:
Show me the money and then the hardware. Otherwise, it's more hot air from
those who think Commercial Space is the best thing since sliced bread.

For the short term this is just about the only thing in the oven right now.

Although I'm a big fan of commercial space I tend to agree with Matt that
right now I just don't understand the economics. For SpaceX and Falcon it
works because of the COTS seed money going into it to make it viable once the
infrastructure is set up. But where's the equivalent for Bigelow and the
others? Without the big govt. contracts to sustain it through initial
deployment what becomes of it?

I'm all for private enterprise picking up the tab for space expansionism, but
frankly I don't see where the dollars are coming from either.

I mean I 'get' the idea of space tourism ala Virgin Galactic, but how much
expansionism will that really fund? What sustains the Bigelow LEO hotel? And
I'm not event talking about the cost of getting there in the first place!

Dave

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:50:31 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!

Show me the money.

Funny thing is, with launch costs dropping, payload costs will likely
drop as well. No need for things like uber expensive machined titanium
satellite/spacecraft parts that few suppliers can produce. Fittings can
weigh a bit more and be made out of much cheaper materials like aluminum
alloys which can be more easily and cheaply machined by more numerous
suppliers.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Jeff Findley wrote:
Funny thing is, with launch costs dropping, payload costs will likely
drop as well.

No disagreement here. We should be paying more attention at the low end of
what SpaceX is doing (like Falcon 1e) to see if that starts to draw paying
customers. But maybe it won't because the real $$$ is in GEO not LEO?

But Jeff, if you're looking for irony, how 'bout the idea that all this
commercial stuff is hitting the market just as the cost of petroleum is about
to skyrocket. So what will it matter all these wonderful hardware cost
reductions if the cost of RP1 jumps up to the consumer equivalent of $4 per
gallon gas?

I know, in the total scheme of things the fuel cost is pretty small until you
get into the exotic fuels, but I just think it is "somewhat" ironic.

Buy your RP-1 in bulk now and save up! They make the equivalent of 'STA-BIL'
(tm) for RP-1??? :-)

Dave

LSMFT wrote:

I want to see a big wheel in orbit with it's own gravity.

I don't even care if there's a Pam Am logo on the shuttles to it. ;^)

On 04/10/2011 09:50 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Sky...x_construction

Interesting idea; and the proposed launch date corresponds with the
Falcon Heavy.

Over on sci.space.shuttle in the Falcon Heavy thread, Jeff Findley said
"Build it and they will come"; well, here they come!

Even if a commercial space station is built, it will not be a
"replacement" for ISS, in the sense that the ISS partners will not
abandon ISS in favor of it. A commercial station would operate in
parallel with ISS, not in place of it.