What if MIR hadnt been de orbited?

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

When Mir was designed it was intended that the Buran shuttle would be
sent to it with new modules, and the older modules would be returned to
earth via the Buran;

If the Russians ever did entertain such a plan, it obviously didn't get
very far; even the Mir modules launched while Buran was still a viable
program (Kvant, Kvant 2 and Kristall) lacked any kind of grapple fixtures
for Buran's robotic arm to grapple them, nor trunnion pins to latch them in
Buran's payload bay. Contrast that with the US docking module the Russians
provided for launch in 1996; it came with both a grapple fixture and
trunnion pins.

I suspect that the modules to be carried up by Buran would have been the
only ones planned for return on Buran, and that the existing modules would
have stayed there. The overall design of the station supports this view:
Buran docked to Kristall, not the base module, and Kristall also included a
second APAS mechanism to accommodate the new modules.

--
JRF

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

One of the problems being experienced with modular space stations is the
flexure created by mass-cons in the Earth. Quite a number of engineers
involved in building the ISS felt that a cicular, Von Braun type station,
always rotating and complete at the time of habitation was the way to go. This
is what we saw in "2001", and the vision remains. Connections and conduits are
not meant to bend back and forth, not matter how small and amount. MIR wore
out from many hardware failures, some related to this, and ISS will eventually
do the same.
Von Braun had a vison that was not only futuristic, but sensibly thought out.
Before we get too much farther into deep space, I think we may revisit what he
laid out in his time.

Michael Walsh wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:

I would say that both MIR and the ISS are modular space stations
but that the modules are not easily replaceable.

If you cannot freely swap them out, they are not modules.

I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion about the meaning of
the word "modular" but it doesn't necessarily mean freely able to swap
in and out. Modular construction usually means that separate modules
are constructed and then connected together. It doesn't mean that
you can easily swap new units in and out.

Modular construction != modular space station.

Since MIR has been deorbited there isn't any point is discussing
the refurbishment of it, but I don't believe the time and effort
would the equivalent of three new space stations.

Oh? Then you haven't added up what would have been required to
perform the refurbishment.

From what you state below then you have not done so either.

In other words, you want me to do your working and thinking for you.
Fine.

Did anyone ever run a study on both the long term capability of
the MIR basic structure and the cost of replacing and upgrading
its major components?

No, because the basic components could not be replaced, and upgrading
on orbit required extreme measures. One might was well do a cost
study on building a new ten story building, or moving an existing one
fifteen miles then completely refurbishing it.

This is not at all a convincing argument as you make the rather broad
claim that what you say is true without bothering to state any kind of
a case.

To anyone even passingly familiar with the topic in question, one
should not have to make a case. But since you remain willingly
ignorant, I'll spell it out for you.

Are you claiming that it is obvious that what you say is true?

Is it not obvious that you need EVA crews, EVA support crews, folks to
support them, living quarters, working quarters, tools & parts
stowage, recreation, supplies storage, docking points, maintenance...

As a matter of fact, in some cases buildings have been moved for
miles and completely refurbished. I agree that ten story buildings
might be pushing it.

In 'some cases' indeed, but usually limited to much smaller and
simpler structures than a ten story building unless it was of great
value. I.E. very, very rarely.

The economic reason was that Russia was unwilling to maintain
the older MIR station and also participate in the ISS.

Not unwilling, unable.

That is the kind of nonsense that I keep seeing in these newsgroups.
A nation the size of Russia is quite able of funding the continuation of
the MIR,

ROTFLMAO. Physical size isn't everything, economic size and ability
is what matters, and in these Russia comes up far short.

but won't necessarily have the will to do so unless they
see some kind of advantage. In the case of MIR, there was not only
the economic cost but the matter of dealing with the U.S. on
the ISS.

Clue: The Soviets were unable to send a last mission to MIR, even
though they wanted to. They simply didn't have the spacecraft.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
In other words, you want me to do your working and thinking for you.

Why should he be any different than Bob Haller?

RDG wrote:
... Quite a number of engineers involved in building the ISS felt that a
cicular, Von Braun type station, always rotating and complete at the time
of habitation was the way to go. This is what we saw in "2001", and the
vision remains.

Minor nit: That wasn't quite what we saw in 2001. The station was habitable,
but it was also still under construction. Moreover, major construction was
taking place while the structure was rotating. (IIRC, Clarke later admitted
that this was one of the few major technical flaws in the film.)

The notion that a rotating space station is structurally resistant to unwanted
modes and therefore resistant to fatigue is an interesting one. Has this ever
been discussed in the peer-reviewed literature?

--
Dave Michelson

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote in
:



When Mir was designed it was intended that the Buran shuttle would be
sent to it with new modules, and the older modules would be returned to
earth via the Buran;



If the Russians ever did entertain such a plan, it obviously didn't get
very far; even the Mir modules launched while Buran was still a viable
program (Kvant, Kvant 2 and Kristall) lacked any kind of grapple fixtures
for Buran's robotic arm to grapple them, nor trunnion pins to latch them in
Buran's payload bay.

Contrast that with the US docking module the Russians
provided for launch in 1996; it came with both a grapple fixture and
trunnion pins.

I suspect that the modules to be carried up by Buran would have been the
only ones planned for return on Buran, and that the existing modules would
have stayed there. The overall design of the station supports this view:
Buran docked to Kristall, not the base module, and Kristall also included a
second APAS mechanism to accommodate the new modules.



I wonder if the rotator arm that engaged the plug on Mir when they were
moved from the front docking port to their assigned position on the side
ports was to play a part? But as you say locking them into Buran's cargo
bay seems problematic.
The Soviet artwork of Buran docked to Mir shows the Kristall module at
the front port: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/buranmir.jpg and
surprisingly only two modules docked at the front ports; Kristall and
Kvant II; artwork shown in "Cosmonautics: A Colorful History" shows
this Kristall-at-front configuration also in relation to U.S. shuttle
dockings, but in the completed configuration for Mir, with at least two
of the other three modules attached to the side ports:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/gifs/shuttle_mir.gif as was used on
the Atlantis docking:
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/gal...huttle_mir.jpg
the configuration leaves the extra docking port on Kristall's side
directly over the Space Shuttle's cargo bay (180 degrees reversed from
the attitude shown in the Mir/Buran painting) and in an ideal position
to attach a new module to Mir, provided that Kristall's solar array is
either fully retracted or removed.
If four other modules were attached before Kristall was docked to the
front docking port; and Kristall was equipped with both of the docking
ports at 90 degrees to its axis, instead of the single one it had, then
Buran could have theoretically have had _two_ ports on which to add new
replaceable modules ports that would have been directly in position
above it's cargo bay; provided that it turned its docking alignment
through 180 degrees as the second one was attached. So the question of
the week becomes what was the _5th_ front-docking module that was
apparently supposed to fly before Kristall -and end up on the side port
where Kristall did- to preserve Mir's symmetry in regards to air drag
and center of mass for orientation purposes ...that apparently never got
built?

Pat

In message NQRXb.518149$X%5.163776@pd7tw2no, Dave Michelson
writes
RDG wrote:
... Quite a number of engineers involved in building the ISS felt
that a cicular, Von Braun type station, always rotating and complete
the time of habitation was the way to go. This is what we saw in
"2001", and the vision remains.

Minor nit: That wasn't quite what we saw in 2001. The station was habitable,
but it was also still under construction. Moreover, major construction was
taking place while the structure was rotating. (IIRC, Clarke later admitted
that this was one of the few major technical flaws in the film.)

As well as the Chesley Bonestell moonscapes, the lack of radiators on
Discovery, the astronaut holding his breath, and the jump from gibbous
to crescent Earth, And a moonbus going from Clavius to Tycho would
either use wheels or a ballistic trajectory. It wouldn't fly a few
hundred feet up.
The drink falling back down the straw in microgravity, and some very odd
shadows on a rotating astronaut (that last according to Brian Ford)
probably count as minor technical flaws.
2001 is a beautiful and remarkable film, but the idea that it's
technically flawless is looking a bit thin by now.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Henry Spencer wrote:

Note also that von Braun's station design almost certainly would not have
worked, because it spins too fast. The limits to human tolerance in this
area are not terribly well known -- the exact situation is impossible to
simulate on Earth -- but rotating-room experiments suggest that around
5rpm is tops even for selected crews, and 2rpm or less is preferable.
A 1G 2rpm station is nearly half a kilometer across.


Didn't they determine that trying to do a fast spinning station of
fairly small size could lead to both nausea and vertigo at the very
least due to inner ear balance problems, all the way up to aneurysms in
severe cases? (though why it would do that is a bit beyond me.)

Pat

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


As well as the Chesley Bonestell moonscapes, the lack of radiators on
Discovery, the astronaut holding his breath, and the jump from gibbous
to crescent Earth, And a moonbus going from Clavius to Tycho would
either use wheels or a ballistic trajectory. It wouldn't fly a few
hundred feet up.
The drink falling back down the straw in microgravity, and some very
odd shadows on a rotating astronaut (that last according to Brian
Ford) probably count as minor technical flaws.
2001 is a beautiful and remarkable film, but the idea that it's
technically flawless is looking a bit thin by now.


And once the monkeys stop fighting, it moves at the pace of molasses on
a December morning.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:

I would say that both MIR and the ISS are modular space stations
but that the modules are not easily replaceable.

If you cannot freely swap them out, they are not modules.

I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion about the meaning of
the word "modular" but it doesn't necessarily mean freely able to swap
in and out. Modular construction usually means that separate modules
are constructed and then connected together. It doesn't mean that
you can easily swap new units in and out.

Modular construction != modular space station.

No point in arguing, but if you ever discuss a modular space station with
someone you had better explain what you mean. Just calling it a
modular space doesn't necessarily imply the modules can easily be
swapped in and out.

Since MIR has been deorbited there isn't any point is discussing
the refurbishment of it, but I don't believe the time and effort
would the equivalent of three new space stations.

Oh? Then you haven't added up what would have been required to
perform the refurbishment.

From what you state below then you have not done so either.

In other words, you want me to do your working and thinking for you.
Fine.

Did anyone ever run a study on both the long term capability of
the MIR basic structure and the cost of replacing and upgrading
its major components?

No, because the basic components could not be replaced, and upgrading
on orbit required extreme measures. One might was well do a cost
study on building a new ten story building, or moving an existing one
fifteen miles then completely refurbishing it.

This is not at all a convincing argument as you make the rather broad
claim that what you say is true without bothering to state any kind of
a case.

To anyone even passingly familiar with the topic in question, one
should not have to make a case. But since you remain willingly
ignorant, I'll spell it out for you.

You made the remark about the refurbishment costing as much as
three new space stations. This claim is so extreme that it quite necessarily

seems to imply some kind of defense of your thesis.



Are you claiming that it is obvious that what you say is true?

Is it not obvious that you need EVA crews, EVA support crews, folks to
support them, living quarters, working quarters, tools & parts
stowage, recreation, supplies storage, docking points, maintenance...

It is not obvious that this kind of effort is going to be more expensive than

constructing and orbiting a completely new space station, let alone the
claim that three of them could be provided for the same price as restoring
the capabilities of MIR.

The amount of effort required depends on the amount of refurbishment
that is required. There are two basic things required if MIR was to be
refurbished for a particular time period.

1. The basic condition of the structure of the MIR modules.

If the basic structural modules can't be repaired then my assumption would be

that MIR was not a suitable subject for refurbishment. There was one serious

leak problem due to the collision that I never heard was completely sealed.
If the MIR was going to be deorbited then there was no point in proceeding to

do a suitable repair, it made more sense to close off that section of MIR.

Other than that my basic working assumption would be that the module
structure
should be useful for at least several, and probably more years. In a lot of
ways
space is a more benign region than the surface of the earth, at least for
inanimate
structures.

2. Major systems within MIR.

This is the area where major refurbishment is required. Before MIR was
deorbited there were a considerable number of control and computer
problems. I would certainly assume this would require resolution including
both identifying the problem, correcting it, and having a recovery program
in case the problem recurred again.

In this thread I have read some other peoples comments on various systems
including a cooling system problem. This sounds like a serious problem
requiring
new components and considerable EVA work in order to provide a permanent
solution.

This brings up another question. How long do you want to keep MIR alive
and what do you intend to use it for? This effects whether you want to patch

the station for a designated time period and then dispose of it or whether
you
want to use it in place of a completely new station.

3. Has anyone seriously proposed an extension of MIR?

I am not sure how serious the MIR Corp bid was for continued operation of
MIR and however much they were proposing to spend wasn't enough to entice
the Russians into putting in additional money to keep it alive. I do regard
this
as an indicator that keeping MIR alive was given some serious engineering
study.

(Snipped building analogy as not particularly relevant to the discussion)


The economic reason was that Russia was unwilling to maintain
the older MIR station and also participate in the ISS.

Not unwilling, unable.

That is the kind of nonsense that I keep seeing in these newsgroups.
A nation the size of Russia is quite able of funding the continuation of
the MIR,

ROTFLMAO. Physical size isn't everything, economic size and ability
is what matters, and in these Russia comes up far short.

but won't necessarily have the will to do so unless they
see some kind of advantage. In the case of MIR, there was not only
the economic cost but the matter of dealing with the U.S. on
the ISS.

Clue: The Soviets were unable to send a last mission to MIR, even
though they wanted to. They simply didn't have the spacecraft.

D.

The planning and prioritizing has to be done before the last minute.
The Russians were quite capable of accomplishing a continuation of
the MIR space station if they had the political will and backing of
the necessary political groups in their nation.

Economics implies an allocation of resources. Russia still has the
capabilities required to refurbish MIR or it would not be able to
provide as much support to the ISS as it has.

I would claim that if the United States had funded a program to
refurbish the MIR for long term use and been willing to pay for the
Russian resources to do this that MIR could have been brought back
to an operational for considerably less cost than building the ISS.

Actually, since the ISS is larger and more capable then a more appropriate
discussion should be as to whether MIR could have been refurbished at
a lower cost than orbiting a new MIR.

I think that is much more debatable.

If, indeed, you wish to actually discuss it instead of just laughing it off.

Mike Walsh