Abandon the space station?

(bob haller) wrote:

Of course you again lie, this time by omission. You ommit that the
present experiments will be replaced by new ones.


I thinkthats obvious. if they didnt replace them with new ones then why have a
station?

Hal, with your demonstrated ability to miss the obvious, and your
demonstrated wilful ignorance, I find it hard to go wrong withholding
from you the benefit of the doubt.

But it shoqws the present experiments have little value or scientific return..

No. It shows the present experiments are not in line with the area or
knowledge most being researched.

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

Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in :

Could the system being proposed for HST be used to deorbit ISS?

Probably not "as is". ISS is already 15 times more massive than HST and may
be as much as 40 times more massive by the time it's deorbited. It will
require much more propellant to deorbit.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Could the system being proposed for HST be used to deorbit ISS?

Probably not "as is". ISS is already 15 times more massive than HST and may

Just let ISS get low enough and one progress could bring it down.

The hard part isnt bringing it down, just dont reboost wait long enough and its
down.....

The trouble is putting it down where you want it....

Not on top of somenes head....

Keeping it up is really the challenge.
Hey this is my opinion

On 22 Mar 2004, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"JimO" wrote in
:

I recall that the higher HST orbit does introduce some vulnerability
to prop failures/leaks that lose you de-orbit sooner than you'd lose
it from the ISS altitude, right?

I believe so, but I'm not sure (in particular, I'd heard RCS deorbit was
not available as a downmode).

RCS Deorbit isn't necessarily a given from an ISS orbit either and neither
an HST or ISS flight has "propellant fail" capability (the ability to
deorbit after the loss of a single OMS propellant tank) once the final
orbit is achieved. Both of these capabilities might exist early in the
mission while still in a lower orbit while the orbiter is still catching up
with the target while deorbit costs are low and propellant reserves are
high, but once rendezvous altitude is achieved there isn't enough
propellant left over to cover either of these failures.

--
Dean Lenort

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
:


"Botch" wrote in message
...
On 22 Mar 2004 12:15:30 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

A goal, definately......but the US has had only one station and this
half built mutant that we have now The ISS has been in the planning
and construction phase since the 80's, we can't even finish building
the test bed toTEST tech for a Mars mission.

ISSS has been in the planning and construction phases since 1992.
Before that we were planning Freedom for many years, but never got
much done.

And it is not a test bed to test tech for Mars. In fact, Congress in
the past few years made it clear that NASA could NOT test Mars bound
tech on the station (witness the fate of transhab.)

That's because up until this new initiative, Mars in association with human
spaceflight, was a very very bad word with the Congress. Don't forget the
times dude. Paper studies and fairly low key earth bound research funded
by general aerospace research funds (i.e. that didn't require specific
funding be aproved by Congress), was all NASA was alowed to do specificly
in the name of Humans going to the Moon or Mars.




Specifically we need a LOW COST TO ORBIT SYSTEM! After that
everything
else
gets easier!

Agreed, we need a better, cheaper launch system, but we also need a
station to develop the Mars tech where the very survival of the
station doesnt' compete with the experiments that are being done.

Probably.



Botch




--
David,

--------------The Speed of Light---------------
---------------300,000 km/second---------------
----Its not just a good idea, it's the law!----

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:


ISSS has been in the planning and construction phases since 1992.
Before
that we were planning Freedom for many years, but never got much done.

No, it was Space Station Freedom all the way through CDR in the spring
of 1993. It was briefly "Alpha" during the summer/fall timeframe during
the time the Russians were climbing aboard and turned into "ISS" shortly
thereafter.

Thanks. I thought Clinton had announced the change in 92, not 93.


And it is not a test bed to test tech for Mars. In fact, Congress in
the
past few years made it clear that NASA could NOT test Mars bound tech on
the
station (witness the fate of transhab.)

SSF was supposed to be - that's what the closed-loop ECLSS was for, the
on-orbit assembly/maintenance experience was to lead up to, and the
planning and logistics for multinational/multiyear missions was supposed
to culminate in.


No argument, but the discussion was about what ISS is now, not what
Freedom was supposed to be.


However, once ISS scaled back the original lifetime to 15 years (rather
than 30) - half of which or more is being used up in a drawn-out
assembly sequence - and once the systems requirements deleted, delayed
or pushed waaaay down the line all the real interesting and useful stuff
(closed loop ECLSS, 8 person crew, deleting Lab "B" and both Habs,
delaying the centrifuge module, delaying Columbus and Kibo labs,
deletion of Nodes 3 and 4, etc), real tangible benefits for any kind of
additional mission (whether to the Moon, Mars or anywhere) are hard to
find.

Ayup.



--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Chris Bennetts wrote:

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.

I expect a lab down on Earth that had a budget of $100 B would produce
an enormous amount of science.

The science that can be expected to come from ISS is, at best, pitiful.

Paul

Brian Thorn wrote:

10 years and ISS will be at end of life.


No, it will have two years left, possibly much more under commercial
sponsorship of the US segment.

Do you actually think there's going to be any significant commercial
interest in ISS? Microgravity just isn't commercially attractive given
current launch technology.

Paul

Derek Lyons wrote:
(bob haller) wrote:

But it shoqws the present experiments have little value or scientific return..


No. It shows the present experiments are not in line with the area or
knowledge most being researched.

This is a wonderful example of terminally wishful self-delusion. Past
non-performance (the existing experiments being of low value) is not
a problem -- the future experiments will be wonderful!

True believers can excuse anything. NASA loves fools like you, Derek.

Paul

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:37:07 -0600, "Paul F. Dietz"
wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:

10 years and ISS will be at end of life.


No, it will have two years left, possibly much more under commercial
sponsorship of the US segment.

Do you actually think there's going to be any significant commercial
interest in ISS? Microgravity just isn't commercially attractive given
current launch technology.

By 2016, we may not be talking about "current launch technology".

Brian