|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
NASA will extend the life of ISS forever.... basically till theres a bad accident caused by the age of the station
NASA will not to end ISS, since it will cost the agency $ and jobs and prestige. remember you heard it here first. and honestly I WISH I were wrong |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
On 2015-01-19 19:17:17 +0000, bob haller said:
NASA will extend the life of ISS forever.... basically till theres a bad accident caused by the age of the station NASA will not to end ISS, since it will cost the agency $ and jobs and prestige. remember you heard it here first. and honestly I WISH I were wrong What about our foreign partners? Will they stay? Can NASA go it alone? If we bring the Chinese in, will they prop it up? And the NASA budget, you have to explain what will hapen to it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
NASA will extend the life of ISS forever.... basically till theres a bad accident caused by the age of the station NASA will not to end ISS, since it will cost the agency $ and jobs and prestige. remember you heard it here first. and honestly I WISH I were wrong Its a holding pattern and not a "mistake." Should the program be better funded? Yes. Should it reach further? Yes. Will China step in? Or will China do its own flags and footprints? Or will China slide back and fall into a depression? All these could happen though I'll bet on the last as most likely. how many pipelines carry Russian oil to China?.......Trig |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 2:17:18 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
NASA will extend the life of ISS forever.... basically till theres a bad accident caused by the age of the station That will be hard to do without operating Russian components or their replacement. It will cost $$$ to do that... So ISS will need to change in order to extend its life "forever". If your proposal is that NASA will fly ISS as long as possible without changes or upgrades, that won't go for very long... If abandoned it will return on its own. Just exactly where however becomes the problem... Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
Oa bad accident will be one that requires evacuaton of crew, or loss of station control
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
Oa bad accident will be one that requires evacuaton of crew, or loss of station control Without an ability to fly significant payloads to the station, or farther, we lack the means to support the station long-term. Thus, getting the station to support fewer crew members, for longer term stays, can extend its life, particularly, if we give the station the ability to move beyond LEO. Each ISS solar array wing consists of two retractable "blankets" of solar cells with a mast between them. Each wing uses nearly 33,000 solar cells and when fully extended is 35 metres (115 ft) in length and 12 metres (39 ft) wide. Boeing Spectrolab cells with 28% efficiency, each array produce a total peak output of 160 kW. The ISS now has the full complement of eight solar array wings. A total of 1,287 kW is possible to produce from these eight wings. The solar arrays normally track the Sun, with the "alpha gimbal" used as the primary rotation to follow the Sun as the space station moves around the Earth, and the "beta gimbal" used to adjust for the angle of the space station's orbit to the ecliptic. Yet, it is also capable of pointing away from the Sun, to avoid overcharging the batteries. The power management and distribution subsystem operates at a primary bus voltage set to Vmp, the peak power point of the solar arrays. As of December 30, 2005, Vmp was 160 volts DC (direct current). Peak output changes over time as the arrays degrade from ionizing radiation. The battery charge/discharge units (BCDUs) regulate the amount of charge put into the battery and protects from over-charge. Each BCDU regulates discharge current from two battery ORUs, and can provide up to 6.6 kW to the Space Station. The Space Station has 24 BCDUs, each weighing 100 kg. This provides a reliable 52.8 kW to the station - despite charge/discharge cycles - and 16 day/night cycles per 24 hour period at its present orbit. 419,600 kg is the mass of the space station. Now, to move the station; At 6.9 kW the NEXT ion engine produces 236 milliNewtons of thrust while ejecting Xenon gas at a speed of 40,000 m/sec. The engine masses 40 kg and is capable of ejecting 900 kg of Xenon over a five year period while operating at full thrust. 24 such units attached to the stations' control system, provides 5.664 Newtons of thrust for five years accelerating the station's speed by 2.00 km/sec. More interesting is rewiring each wing to power 20 NEXT ion engines directly. A total of 160 engines. At 900 kg Xenon each engine, and 100 kg for engine and controls this adds 160,000 kg to the total weight of which 144,000 is Xenon. This has the potential to accelerate the station's speed by 11.4 km/sec - this time over seven years - since the station is not thrusting when in shadow. This is enough to send it anywhere in the solar system. Each 900 kg tank of Xenon fits in a sphere 863.5 mm in diameter. Two of these, with the ion engine and control interface, are delivered by a single Progress ATV. So, a programme with 160 engines cost $3.2 billion to deploy on the station, using Progress Capsules. Of this total $1.1 billion is for Progress flights. The result would be a mobile station that visits Mars orbit and returns to Earth Orbit. It would visit Diemos and Phobos and figure out what the hell is going on on those moons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itRIgeObMvU http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_of_ISS_1.jpg This is a rethink of Stuhlinger's original proposal for Mars - without a landing craft of course. With solar energy being the nuclear source of energy for 'the ship'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vblN33OJCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEg7dF5rg8Y International Space Station -- International Space Ship. $3.2 BILLION! Pretty good value for money. For added money, we could add an Altair, adapted to land on Mars. Ascent module: 10,809 kg (23,830 lb) Descent module: 35,055 kg (77,283 lb) Total: 45,864 kg (101,113 lb) This is only 10% of the total mass, and reduces the total delta vee by very little. Still more than sufficient payload capacity to fly to Mars and back. Another possibility, and more realistic, and reliable, as well as vastly less cost, is the use of the LK lunar lander as a starting point for a mars lander. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_%28spacecraft%29 This masses only 5,200 kg - and 9 of these could be carried along for the weight of one Altair. Likely 9 of these could be built for less than the price of one Altair. With aerobraking from Phobos orbit, 9 craft send 18 people to the Martian surface in 9 missions - and return them to the ISS. Most importantly, the LK could be launched by existing launchers in the Russian inventory. http://www.space.com/26143-flying-sa...-it-video.html A low density inflatable aerobrake could be outfitted to an LK to bring it to near the Martian surface, and then use a small portion of the descent stage to soft land on Mars. Then, use the rest of the descent stage, along with all of the ascent stage, to fly back to orbit, to dock with the ISS-Next in Mars orbit. This adds another $4 billion to the total mission cost. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
A friend of mine pointed out that the high intensity power system developed for NASA's next mission to Saturn, provides 20 kW at 1 AU and supports a 17 kW NEXT system that has an inert mass of 588 kg including solar panels. With a 900 kg propellant load - two of these could be launched in a Progress spaceraft and not have to be wired into the ISS. In fact, the ISS could tap into the spacecraft power system as it moved beyond Earth orbit.
http://bit.ly/1xSj5mD In this way, we could attach NEXT systems with their own solar collectors, to the International Space Station converting it to the International Space Ship Alpha. Others could be invited to contribute - Elon Musk would provide variants of the Dragon capsule as a mars lander/outpost vehicle, whilst the Russians would provide updated LK landers for mars lander and return vehicle. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
"William Mook" wrote in message
... On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote: Oa bad accident will be one that requires evacuaton of crew, or loss of station control Without an ability to fly significant payloads to the station, or farther, we lack the means to support the station long-term. Well, fortunately we have the ability to fly significant payloads to the station. As for farther, your statement is non-sensical. There's no way moving the station further away makes it EASIER to support. Thus, getting the station to support fewer crew members, for longer term stays, can extend its life, particularly, if we give the station the ability to move beyond LEO. Totally wrong. For one thing, reducing the crew means far less science can be done. If you're not doing science, what's the point? And if you are doing science, you're not maintaining it, which certainly will NOT extend its life. And moving it beyond LEO will certainly HURT its lifespan. Its designed to perform in LEO, including keeping its crew alive there. snipped. The result would be a mobile station that visits Mars orbit and returns to Earth Orbit. It would visit Diemos and Phobos and figure out what the hell is going on on those moons. No, it would result in a mobile, but useless station since the crew would be dead as would all the electronics since they wouldn't survive the trip through those pesky things called the Van Allen Radiation Belts. snipped International Space Station -- International Space Ship. $3.2 BILLION! Pretty good value for money. Sure, if you want to boost something completely useless into interplanetary space. How do you propose to service the thing once its beyond LEO? Your crew might actually want eat and breath and have a chance of clothing. For added money, we could add an Altair, adapted to land on Mars. Ascent module: 10,809 kg (23,830 lb) Descent module: 35,055 kg (77,283 lb) Total: 45,864 kg (101,113 lb) This is only 10% of the total mass, and reduces the total delta vee by very little. Still more than sufficient payload capacity to fly to Mars and back. Another possibility, and more realistic, and reliable, as well as vastly less cost, is the use of the LK lunar lander as a starting point for a mars lander. More realistic than above. Well I suppose. So was von Braun's ideas. But of course at the time we had little idea of the actual atmosphere composition of Mars. now we do. And we know that Mars sucks for landing. You can't do pure rocket like the Moon and you can't easily aerobrake like on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_%28spacecraft%29 This masses only 5,200 kg - and 9 of these could be carried along for the weight of one Altair. Likely 9 of these could be built for less than the price of one Altair. With aerobraking from Phobos orbit, 9 craft send 18 people to the Martian surface in 9 missions - and return them to the ISS. So now you're modifying your LK for aerobraking. Don't you think that's going to change things a HELL of a lot about it? Most importantly, the LK could be launched by existing launchers in the Russian inventory. http://www.space.com/26143-flying-sa...-it-video.html A low density inflatable aerobrake could be outfitted to an LK to bring it to near the Martian surface, and then use a small portion of the descent stage to soft land on Mars. Then, use the rest of the descent stage, along with all of the ascent stage, to fly back to orbit, to dock with the ISS-Next in Mars orbit. This is just complete utter nonsense. This adds another $4 billion to the total mission cost. So, just another $4Billion to a mission that's already unworkable. I will give you credit for one thing Mr. Mook. You've succeeded in making NASA's plans look reasonable! -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I have a prediction:(
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prediction? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 4 | December 8th 07 04:53 PM |
NASA has recently answered with a world press release to the prediction of a mega tsunami, created by a possible impact of a fragment of the comet SW-3 on MAY 25, 2006 in the Atlantic Ocean. This prediction, based on a clear and precise psychic commu | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | May 26th 06 06:50 PM |
NASA has recently answered with a world press release to the prediction of a mega tsunami, created by a possible impact of a fragment of the comet SW-3 on MAY 25, 2006 in the Atlantic Ocean. This prediction, based on a clear and precise psychic commu | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | May 4th 06 08:56 PM |
New prediction! | Santana | Misc | 5 | September 27th 05 08:57 PM |
CME arrival prediction | Brian O'Halloran | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 28th 03 05:35 PM |