|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Jul 13, 8:56*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e7f5fec3-8559-4edf-a831-f22bbbd600f3 @p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com, says... if falcon *continues to fly safely and gets its manned upgrade theres no need SLS and Orion. by the time its flying ISS will be deorbited, theres no big need for SLS and orion, and no $$ for a new program I disagree, to a point. *Orion was designed from the start for long missions in deep space. *I seriously doubt if the current version of Dragon (even the manned version for ISS crew rotations) would meet the same requirements. theres no way a multi person crew can live in capsule for a extended deep space mission. It's possible to do this with only the capsule, but it would not be pleasant. *That's why the proposals that I've seen so far (in the online space media) have included some sort of HAB module. *This isn't hard since you can derive one from an ISS module. just look at the exercise requirements for ISS. no way to do that in a tiny capsule for even a month or two, plus radiation shielding. a deep space mission should probably have a water shielded storm shelter a deep space mission will need a dedicated transit mini station..... with a good service module manned transit operations can be provided by falcon or other private operator. but no way astronauts can live in a capsule long term Even if a HAB module is present, Orion has to be capable of operating, and hosting a crew, during the entire mission. *This is primarily because it makes sense to have things like guidance and control on Orion. *In other words, someone has to fly the damn thing. *You might as well fly it from Orion, since it's going to have all of the displays, controls, and etc. already in place. Dragon could do all of that, in theory. *But in practice, it's far more likely that the first iteration of Dragon will only be capable of ISS operations. *That means it is only necessary to function until it gets to ISS, then most of its systems could be powered down until it leaves ISS. *This also makes sense from a safety point of view. *Why keep things like Orion RCS systems active when berthed at ISS? Obviously Orion needs everything working again when it's time to leave. From what I understand, Soyuz operations are very similar. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it * up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " * *- tinker well since ares orion wouldnt be operational till after 2020, and by that time whats left of ISS will be in the pacific..... What jobs will orion do other than a rather ill defined deep space missions that havent been planed. or more importandly funded My point is that orion ares is just a waste of money, other than making pork piggies squeal... better to end orion ares and use falcon...... why duplicate things? perhaps attach some bigelow inflatables so the crews long mission can be more comfy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: Jeff Findley wrote: In article 42848d20-dd90-48d3-8b3e- , says... well since ares orion wouldnt be operational till after 2020, and by that time whats left of ISS will be in the pacific..... This is not a given. Mir stayed in orbit long after its design lifetime was up. The shuttle bringing up spare parts had a lot to do with this. Given the multitude of resupply ships both flying to ISS and in development, I don't see spare parts being much of an issue. Well, yes, it is a given because once we're done with it we will deorbit it as we are responsible for anything it might hit if we don't and it does an uncontrolled reentry. Yes, but it's not remotely guaranteed that you'll be done with it as early as 2020; it's sufficiently expensive that disposing of it other than as late as possible would be ridiculous, and it's not going to hit anything that would suffer remotely as much damage as the blasted thing cost so it would be entirely financially reasonable to say 'we will pay for anything it hits'. I would be unsurprised if the ISS was still running happily in 2040. Not out of the question, but if NASA's in charge, I'd wager it's far more likely to contain ISS derived modules. After all, they might get the Europeans to build the HAB module, which means NASA wouldn't have to pay for it. Oh, don't be silly! You think we don't pay for the stuff others do? That's like saying we don't have to pay because we're going up on Russian boosters! I assure you that lots of the ESA contribution to the ISS program is in kind; no US taxpayer's money went towards building the Leonardo / Raffaelo / Donatello modules, or towards building the ATVs. In exchange for this, the Shuttle seats used by ESA astronauts were not explicitly charged for The Russians charge the US for launching US astronauts on Soyuz because they can. Tom |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 42848d20-dd90-48d3-8b3e- , says... well since ares orion wouldnt be operational till after 2020, and by that time whats left of ISS will be in the pacific..... This is not a given. Mir stayed in orbit long after its design lifetime was up. The shuttle bringing up spare parts had a lot to do with this. Given the multitude of resupply ships both flying to ISS and in development, I don't see spare parts being much of an issue. The second shuttle mission was supposed to be to save Skylab, but the shuttle development program got stretched out way slower than they intended it to. -- I used to own a mind like a steel trap. Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it wouldn't have rusted like this. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:18:01 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:
This is not a given. Mir stayed in orbit long after its design lifetime was up. The shuttle bringing up spare parts had a lot to do with this. Given the multitude of resupply ships both flying to ISS and in development, I don't see spare parts being much of an issue. The second shuttle mission was supposed to be to save Skylab, but the shuttle development program got stretched out way slower than they intended it to. That, and solar activity caused SkyLab's deorbit much earlier than expected. It was widely believed SkyLab would be in orbit until 1982-83 (which would have kept it within reach of one of the early Shuttle missions even with the delays). But it didn't make it past July 1979. Brian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
lets not forget that the stations modules have a finite lifetime. you
can replace all sorts of parts on a old car but that doesnt make it new, and breakdowns on old vehicles are to be expected. so unless all parties involved are prepared to begin replacing entire modules one day something critical will beak down with possibly disasterous results. the station is now past its design life....... let it age gracefully and not run it till it kills. incidently a out of control station will tumble shedding modules as it tumbles, spreading them over its entire ground track . many parts will survive re entry, the ground track is mostly over populated areas... a station breaking up will cause mass panic, espiically if modules and parts start coming down in populated areas........ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: I'm sorry, but that displays a degree of insanity that I just find impossible to believe. Suppose it comes down on Paris or London. How many people does it kill, what does it destroy, and what does all that cost once all the liability suits are settled. You're talking almost a million tons of stuff coming in at reentry velocities. If the Space Station weighed a million tons then we've already won. It weighs four hundred tons; a rock that size comes in at interplanetary velocity most years, mostly burns up, and is noticed only in internal publications of ballistic-missile defence organisations. There's an atmosphere in the way; almost everything burns up almost entirely, and the rest hits no harder than a component falling off a plane at takeoff. ISS would have been cheaper as a US-only effort. Almost every major program costs more if you involve other governments. It would have been very much cheaper, yes, because it wouldn't have happened; it escaped cancellation as being a reasonably impressive way of keeping Russian rocket scientists from departing en-masse. Tom |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Jul 14, 5:52*am, Thomas Womack
wrote: In article , Fred J. McCall wrote: I'm sorry, but that displays a degree of insanity that I just find impossible to believe. *Suppose it comes down on Paris or London. *How many people does it kill, what does it destroy, and what does all that cost once all the liability suits are settled. *You're talking almost a million tons of stuff coming in at reentry velocities. If the Space Station weighed a million tons then we've already won. It weighs four hundred tons; a rock that size comes in at interplanetary velocity most years, mostly burns up, and is noticed only in internal publications of ballistic-missile defence organisations. *There's an atmosphere in the way; almost everything burns up almost entirely, and the rest hits no harder than a component falling off a plane at takeoff. ISS would have been cheaper as a US-only effort. *Almost every major program costs more if you involve other governments. It would have been very much cheaper, yes, because it wouldn't have happened; it escaped cancellation as being a reasonably impressive way of keeping Russian rocket scientists from departing en-masse. Tom the re entry speed of a asteroid is normally very fast and most of it burns up the re entry speed of ISS modules will be far slower, and structural parts stronger than a asteroid as such a out of control ISS is a much larger hazard than a asteroid, espically since the ISS ground track is over the most populated part of our world |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On 14/07/2012 14:52, Thomas Womack wrote:
In , Fred J. wrote: I'm sorry, but that displays a degree of insanity that I just find impossible to believe. Suppose it comes down on Paris or London. How many people does it kill, what does it destroy, and what does all that cost once all the liability suits are settled. You're talking almost a million tons of stuff coming in at reentry velocities. If the Space Station weighed a million tons then we've already won. It weighs four hundred tons; a rock that size comes in at interplanetary velocity most years, mostly burns up, and is noticed only in internal publications of ballistic-missile defence organisations. There's an atmosphere in the way; almost everything burns up almost entirely, and the rest hits no harder than a component falling off a plane at takeoff. ISS would have been cheaper as a US-only effort. Almost every major program costs more if you involve other governments. It would have been very much cheaper, yes, because it wouldn't have happened; it escaped cancellation as being a reasonably impressive way of keeping Russian rocket scientists from departing en-masse. Tom Re-entry is an interesting subject alright - comparing a nearly circular orbit re-entry like the ISS or other (man made) satellites with a much more direct straight-into the atmosphere entry like Shoemaker-Levy. Velocities and angles and rates of burning up - makes my head spin with all the possibilities. -- T |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:55:55 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote: lets not forget that the stations modules have a finite lifetime. you can replace all sorts of parts on a old car but that doesnt make it new, and breakdowns on old vehicles are to be expected. So do B-52s, KC-135s, T-38s and P-3s, all of which are still in active military service over 50 years after they were delivered. so unless all parties involved are prepared to begin replacing entire modules one day something critical will beak down with possibly disasterous results. Ah, Bob. This wouldn't be sci.space without one of your "THEY'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" fear-mongering at least once a week. the station is now past its design life....... Nope. 2015. 15 years guaranteed on-orbit life, which is more of less through 2015. But most of the hardware is directly descended from Freedom designs, which were specced for 30 years. On the Russian side, there's not much difference between the ISS modules and Mir modules, and Mir went a decade past its design life, only really be hampered by careless fires set off inside and by the Russians ramming it with a Progress freighter in a very-poorly conceived budget-saving demo. et it age gracefully and not run it till it kills. Of course, it can and almost certainly will be periodically inspected by astronauts and cosmonauts to make sure nothing is about to "kill", and if a show-stopper appears, then it can be deorbited. But if it is earning its keep, there's no reason to deorbit it prematurely. incidently a out of control station will tumble shedding modules as it tumbles, spreading them over its entire ground track . many parts will survive re entry, the ground track is mostly over populated areas... That's why Station has two independent control methods... The USOS's side and the Russian side's. That doesn't include Progress or ATV, which can also do the job. ISS is not SkyLab. a station breaking up will cause mass panic, espiically if modules and parts start coming down in populated areas........ 90% or so chance it would come down at sea or in unpopulated areas (deserts), though. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Johnny1a | Policy | 37 | July 16th 12 04:12 PM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Tim Little[_2_] | History | 7 | July 11th 12 01:44 PM |
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment. | Nun Giver | Policy | 0 | July 7th 12 08:24 PM |
Ambrina™: Let's You Experience Ever Lasting Se-xu-al Pleasures.... | Jonhy | Misc | 0 | December 22nd 08 12:15 PM |