Future Retro Space Station Designs.

[stream of consciousness]

I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

Obviously, segments would have to dock automatically, as the Russian
did with Mir, without an orbiter to assemble it, but what to start
with? With Orion making Apollo cool again, I wondered about the
possiblity of resurrecting Skylab's dry workshop, using Ares V's EDS
stage; the solids and the first stage would orbit it. Nodes could be
put at either end for other modules to dock to. However, I read some
web pages on space station design and the idea of using spent rocket
stages fell out of favor to purpose-built modules years ago. And
AFAIK, the Soviets didn't use spent stages in their stations either.
So Ares V could launch purpose built modules that dock automatically,
sort of an "uber Mir," instead of a reconverted EDS stage.

Which would be better from a practical standpoint, given our
experience with ISS -- a "dry workshop" using the EDS stage, a
purpose-built blocks?

Just a thought.

[/stream of consciousness]



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I'd vote for my LSE-CM/ISS, or at least secondly for a Clarke Station,
and my third option is POOF City at Venus L2.
.. - Brad Guth


Michael Gallagher wrote:
[stream of consciousness]

I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

Obviously, segments would have to dock automatically, as the Russian
did with Mir, without an orbiter to assemble it, but what to start
with? With Orion making Apollo cool again, I wondered about the
possiblity of resurrecting Skylab's dry workshop, using Ares V's EDS
stage; the solids and the first stage would orbit it. Nodes could be
put at either end for other modules to dock to. However, I read some
web pages on space station design and the idea of using spent rocket
stages fell out of favor to purpose-built modules years ago. And
AFAIK, the Soviets didn't use spent stages in their stations either.
So Ares V could launch purpose built modules that dock automatically,
sort of an "uber Mir," instead of a reconverted EDS stage.

Which would be better from a practical standpoint, given our
experience with ISS -- a "dry workshop" using the EDS stage, a
purpose-built blocks?

Just a thought.

[/stream of consciousness]



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I'm hoping for
http://carriedaway.blogs.com/photos/...ce_station.jpg
followed by
http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/e...et_station.gif
and maybe later
http://www.eyeonstarwars.com/trilogy...death_star.jpg

"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
...
I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

It's not at all obvious that there would be funding for a LEO station to
replace ISS. At least, not one that's mostly US built and operated. NASA's
direction seems to be back to the moon, with everything else be damned.

Obviously, segments would have to dock automatically, as the Russian
did with Mir, without an orbiter to assemble it, but what to start
with?

Not true. It's entirely possible to use a small "tug" to retrieve and dock
(or berth) modules to a station. One of the COTS proposals for ISS resupply
takes this approach. In the long run, this would seem to be cheaper since
your station modules/supplies don't need to have the ability to
independantly rendezvous and dock.

With Orion making Apollo cool again, I wondered about the
possiblity of resurrecting Skylab's dry workshop, using Ares V's EDS
stage; the solids and the first stage would orbit it.

I thought I'd read somewhere (NASA Spaceflight.com forums) that Ares V can't
put much of anything into orbit without an upper stage.

Nodes could be
put at either end for other modules to dock to. However, I read some
web pages on space station design and the idea of using spent rocket
stages fell out of favor to purpose-built modules years ago. And
AFAIK, the Soviets didn't use spent stages in their stations either.
So Ares V could launch purpose built modules that dock automatically,
sort of an "uber Mir," instead of a reconverted EDS stage.

Don't forget inflatables. NASA may have dropped the Transhab concept due to
lack of funds for ISS, but Bigelow Aerospace is actively pursuing this
technology.

Which would be better from a practical standpoint, given our
experience with ISS -- a "dry workshop" using the EDS stage, a
purpose-built blocks?

Purpose built blocks. Remember how Skylab's deployable
micrometeorite/thermal shielding ripped off during launch? Perhaps there
are better approaches to this problem today, but I think it's far easier to
stick your station modules under an aerodynamic fairing (e.g. like the ones
used for satellite launches) rather than try to make them bear the burdon of
their outer shell being designed for both aerodynamic launch forces and
micrometeorite/thermal shielding.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:40:06 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
.. .
I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

It's not at all obvious that there would be funding for a LEO station to
replace ISS. At least, not one that's mostly US built and operated. NASA's
direction seems to be back to the moon, with everything else be damned.

One of the false lessons learned from ISS is that space stations, and
orbital operations, are a bad idea.

On Mar 10, 6:43 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:40:06 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
.. .
I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

It's not at all obvious that there would be funding for a LEO station to
replace ISS. At least, not one that's mostly US built and operated. NASA's
direction seems to be back to the moon, with everything else be damned.

One of the false lessons learned from ISS is that space stations, and
orbital operations, are a bad idea.

? false lessons learned ? Is that a trick statement?

Perhaps not the least bit false, if made larger along with having much
better shielding, and otherwise deployed as station-keeping within the
moon's L1 or perhaps far better and much cooler is Venus L2.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:40:06 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


It's not at all obvious that there would be funding for a LEO station to
replace ISS ....

True, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun speculating about it.
And it's entirely possible some engineers in NASA could cook up
similar ideas down the road.

.....Purpose built blocks. Remember how Skylab's deployable
micrometeorite/thermal shielding ripped off during launch? ....

Yes, although such a mechanical falure is not inevitable; IOW, if it
hadn't happened then, you wouldn't mention it now.

.... I think it's far easier to
stick your station modules under an aerodynamic fairing (e.g. like the ones
used for satellite launches) rather than try to make them bear the burdon of
their outer shell being designed for both aerodynamic launch forces and
micrometeorite/thermal shielding.



And while Ares V (with upperstage) may not have enough power (yet) for
lunar missions, I imagine it could put decent peices of hardware in
LEO.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mar 21, 7:00 am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:40:06 -0400, "Jeff Findley"

wrote:

It's not at all obvious that there would be funding for a LEO station to
replace ISS ....

True, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun speculating about it.
And it's entirely possible some engineers in NASA could cook up
similar ideas down the road.

.....Purpose built blocks. Remember how Skylab's deployable
micrometeorite/thermal shielding ripped off during launch? ....

Yes, although such a mechanical falure is not inevitable; IOW, if it
hadn't happened then, you wouldn't mention it now.

.... I think it's far easier to
stick your station modules under an aerodynamic fairing (e.g. like the ones
used for satellite launches) rather than try to make them bear the burdon of
their outer shell being designed for both aerodynamic launch forces and
micrometeorite/thermal shielding.

And while Ares V (with upperstage) may not have enough power (yet) for
lunar missions, I imagine it could put decent peices of hardware in
LEO.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

LEO seems wussy and not all that energy efficient. What's so terribly
wrong with our doing a seriously big Clarke Station, as efficiently
but obviously interactively parked within the moon's L1?

Other than being extremely hot and somewhat unavoidably gamma
saturated, where's the big insurmountable problem with our using the
Earth/moon L1?
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 7, 7:56 am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
[stream of consciousness]

I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

Obviously, segments would have to dock automatically, as the Russian
did with Mir, without an orbiter to assemble it, but what to start
with? With Orion making Apollo cool again, I wondered about the
possiblity of resurrecting Skylab's dry workshop, using Ares V's EDS
stage; the solids and the first stage would orbit it. Nodes could be
put at either end for other modules to dock to. However, I read some
web pages on space station design and the idea of using spent rocket
stages fell out of favor to purpose-built modules years ago. And
AFAIK, the Soviets didn't use spent stages in their stations either.
So Ares V could launch purpose built modules that dock automatically,
sort of an "uber Mir," instead of a reconverted EDS stage.

Which would be better from a practical standpoint, given our
experience with ISS -- a "dry workshop" using the EDS stage, a
purpose-built blocks?

Just a thought.

[/stream of consciousness]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

For all the right sorts of technical, safety and orbital payload
reasons, as well as per accomplishing reductions in global pollution
per tonne placed so quickly into orbit, as such we'll need that new
and greatly improved shuttle, of which this advancement need not be of
more than 50% public invested.
Unfortunately, our MI5/CIA cloak and dagger aspects of the past,
present and future has our village idiot butts and private parts
pretty much nailed to their next available cross.

Another somewhat polished reply context, as for a little extra topic
brain-food and eye-candy, whereas here's a couple of old links worth
looking at, plus something of NASA's NExT that'll most likely never
happen unless pigs fly and hell freezes over, not to mention those
NASA/Apollo cows ever coming home.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf

Building an L1 Depot in Phases:
Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surface
http://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20pr...s/LIphases.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far
the most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for
deployment into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an
interactive gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal
for efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as
you'd like, and rather fly-by-rocket efficient if it's robotically
getting there in no special hurry, such as for taking a lunar month if
need be, is good enough as far as robotics seem to care.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon,
especially as for the moon's L1 being the least bit cool or much less
cold as reported by those NASA/Apollo missions it is not, especially
if there's multiple human bodies plus loads of systems and
instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such thermal energy
is not as technically easy to get rid of such internal and absorbed
solar heat as you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time
of ISS, there's not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year
while situated within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end
there's none of that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting
that IR energy as derived from three directions at once.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely
well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other
habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better
than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/
gateway has to offer.
.. - Brad Guth

And the moon's 1 is taboo/nondisclosure rated because ??????
.. - BG

On Mar 26, 8:46 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, Michael Gallagher wrote:

[stream of consciousness]

I was wondering what kind of space station would be built to succeed
ISS, given that the orbiters would be retired and replaced by Orion by
then.

Obviously, segments would have to dock automatically, as the Russian
did with Mir, without an orbiter to assemble it, but what to start
with? With Orion making Apollo cool again, I wondered about the
possiblity of resurrecting Skylab's dry workshop, using Ares V's EDS
stage; the solids and the first stage would orbit it. Nodes could be
put at either end for other modules to dock to. However, I read some
web pages on space station design and the idea of using spent rocket
stages fell out of favor to purpose-built modules years ago. And
AFAIK, the Soviets didn't use spent stages in their stations either.
So Ares V could launch purpose built modules that dock automatically,
sort of an "uber Mir," instead of a reconverted EDS stage.

Which would be better from a practical standpoint, given our
experience with ISS -- a "dry workshop" using the EDS stage, a
purpose-built blocks?

Just a thought.

[/stream of consciousness]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe#1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

For all the right sorts of technical, safety and orbital payload
reasons, as well as per accomplishing reductions in global pollution
per tonne placed so quickly into orbit, as such we'll need that new
and greatly improved shuttle, of which this advancement need not be of
more than 50% public invested.
Unfortunately, our MI5/CIA cloak and dagger aspects of the past,
present and future has our village idiot butts and private parts
pretty much nailed to their next available cross.

Another somewhat polished reply context, as for a little extra topic
brain-food and eye-candy, whereas here's a couple of old links worth
looking at, plus something of NASA's NExT that'll most likely never
happen unless pigs fly and hell freezes over, not to mention those
NASA/Apollo cows ever coming home.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/OASISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Pointhttp://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf

Building an L1 Depot in Phases:
Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surfacehttp://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20presentations/LIphases.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far
the most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for
deployment into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an
interactive gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal
for efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as
you'd like, and rather fly-by-rocket efficient if it's robotically
getting there in no special hurry, such as for taking a lunar month if
need be, is good enough as far as robotics seem to care.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon,
especially as for the moon's L1 being the least bit cool or much less
cold as reported by those NASA/Apollo missions it is not, especially
if there's multiple human bodies plus loads of systems and
instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such thermal energy
is not as technically easy to get rid of such internal and absorbed
solar heat as you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time
of ISS, there's not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year
while situated within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end
there's none of that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting
that IR energy as derived from three directions at once.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely
well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other
habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better
than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/
gateway has to offer.
. - Brad Guth