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

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....

Hallerb wrote:
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./

This is political goobledygook meant to sway the media coverage.

Look at Hubble. The money for its upgrade has already been spent. You're not
going to save much.

Look at the Station: Except for the USA habitation capability
(HAB/NODE3/whatever), the USA segment has already been paid for. All that is
left is to launch the items waiting in storage at KSC.

And right now, the USA has committed to launching and supporting the European
and Japanese labs. This requres that the truss be completed (so that there is
enough power generation capability) and node 2 launched.

Also, consider that if you're going to be building a mars ship, it will be at
least as big if not bigger than the station. (since it will require a whole
bunch of storage space for supplies).

One needs to validate the station's design for stuff like attitude control.
Once the station is "assembly complete", will the CMGs work reliably ? Or will
there be too much torque required and they have a bigger than expected failure
rate ?

How will the truss react to reboost operations from Progress and ATV ?
(different direction that very slow reboosts by shuttle). Will CBMs be able to
handle the "wear and tear" from not only reboosts, but more especially
attitude changes done by CMGs ? (Think of the CBM between Unity and Destiny
which will bear all the brunt of the force of moving Unity, truss, Node2,
Columbus, Kibo and postentionally a shuttle attached at the very end.

Yes, it is almost sure that the engineers got it right on paper. But one still
needs to test this in reality and over time to validate the designs.

Look at Elektron. It hasn't exactly been very reliable as of late. And you'd
think that Russia would have gotten it right after all the experience in Mir
(did Mir have an elektron or did it rely only on candles and O2 supply from
Progress ?)

Look at CDRA on the USA side ? Have they gotten it to work reliably to a level
where they can bet their lives on it, or is it still working intermittently to
prevent problems from arising ?

If you're planning on long duration space flights, you first have to get such
basic systems to work reliably and that means doing a proper shakedown of all
those technologies on the space station.

Yes, there have been problems on the station, and there will be more problems
to come. But that is exactly why the station is so valuable. It is only by
discovering what works and what doesn't work (and how to fix it) that
humankind will be able to build some ship that can go to mars and back.

And if they can't get Elektron to work reliably, but they know that for the
first 6 months, it works well, then they'll just have to load multiple
Elektrons on a ship to mars, so that they can have reliable O2 generation for
the duration of the flight.

(Hallerb) wrote:

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./

Which means that you'd have to pony up *more* money to replace the ISS
later. The need for the research in question isn't magically going to
vanish when we get out of LEO. (Keep in mind there is a difference
between exploring & exploiting, and stunt flying. Unlike many, I am
firmly in favor of the first, and not of the second.

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.

An assumption unsupported by facts at hand.

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.

An assumption unsupported by facts at hand.

Sadly the station lacks science....

Another contemptible and ignorant lie.

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

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

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
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.

I expect you are fooling yourself, as one can easily spend $100B on an
instrument that's all but single purpose (SSSC anyone?), and produces
wonderful and important science, but not all that much of it and all
of that little on a very narrow topic. $100B spent on a 10k acre
botanical facility would produce a rather different harvest of science
in terms of span and scale. The same amount would buy you a largish
number of research reactors (TRIGA style), but a limited amount of
science in terms of span.

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

Yep. You are fooling youself.

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

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.