A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th 03, 08:22 AM
Abdul Ahad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

With NASA budgets for manned space flight not looking too rosy these
days, since the Columbia disaster, and any future direction on whether
to continue the ailing Shuttle program for decades more or to invest
in a whole new ball game for future orbital transfers - all looking
somewhat patchy, I have a few simple (but fanciful) thoughts that I
would like to share with you all!

Considering that the ISS in its final guise post-completion will be
substantially below what I would have liked to see with a 21st century
orbital facility, I reckon we should (or NASA should) make a future
aim towards the Moon.

I was always under the impression that the ISS would be an advanced
facility for testing such things as artificail gravity with rotating
modules, new and innovative interplanetary propulsion technologies, it
would act as an orbital foot hold for building manned Mars rockets,
provide a half way house for future journeys to the Moon, etc. Clearly
these things are not going to happen and with the ISS mass vs its
orbital altitude of just 400-km, there is no further room to expand
the Station within dynamical constraints. Even as it stands, the ISS
orbit is prone to rapid decay and without periodic re-boosts from the
Soyuz and Shuttle, there is risk of re-entry!

Back to the Moon idea. Suppose we could dis-assemble the ISS piece by
piece and fire each bit of hardware on low cost, fuel efficient,
transfers to a fixed location on the near side of the Moon ready for
future re-assembly into a Moon base? The Earth-Moon transfer can be
low cost, as much of the hard work of lifting massive solar panels,
radiators, truss segments, service modules, etc into LEO has already
been done and they are expensive and vital components. A delta-V
increment impulse from an ISS orbital velocity of 7.7 km/s to an
Earth-Moon transfer escape of circa 11 km/s should be easy. Assuming
we can manage this first phase, it should then be a new motivation for
the international participants in the ISS program to aim for a lunar
base. Funding support from countries like Japan, India and even China
(up and coming space nations) may be more forthcoming with this idea
once they know we have a fixed location in mind.

I reckon this idea will gain psychological acceptance also. Everyone
looks up at the night sky and dreams of going to the Moon, its the
nearest object of any size to resemble a *world* as opposed to near
Earth *space*. So if you're American (I'm not) then lobby the US
government to send up all Shuttle missions from this day forth with
this idea in mind! If we're lucky, then by 2010 we could have the
first Saturn 5s and Proton's launching men to the Moon once again,
this time to build a Moon base for all eternity. Then we will have
made REAL progress in space!

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/
  #2  
Old November 10th 03, 03:26 AM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

What we REALLY need is a low cost way to orbit! Get that and everything else
becomes more mangeable
  #4  
Old November 11th 03, 01:20 AM
B. Isaksen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

There are too many problems for your idea ot be realistic in a
decade's time frame. How do you explauin to russia, japa, europe and
other partners that their property/terretorila borders are being
stuffed around? Why do you want to send a spacestation from where it
is reachable to where it might be reachable by only one rightful
owner?

It is cheaper to do microgravity research closer to home. Perhaps you
dont want to do that, but many modules and partners joined precisly to
do microgravity research.

Why do you want to move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of
power, and for radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to
something it not is designed for? Does it disturb your nightsky? (just
kidding).

You see there are problems with this approach. I once had a similar
thought. Feel free to check out:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ogle.com#link1

Sincerly
Bjørn Ove
  #5  
Old November 11th 03, 08:36 AM
Abdul Ahad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

(B. Isaksen) wrote in message om...
There are too many problems for your idea ot be realistic in a
decade's time frame. How do you explauin to russia, japa, europe and
other partners that their property/terretorila borders are being
stuffed around? Why do you want to send a spacestation from where it
is reachable to where it might be reachable by only one rightful
owner?

It is cheaper to do microgravity research closer to home. Perhaps you
dont want to do that, but many modules and partners joined precisly to
do microgravity research.

Why do you want to move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of
power, and for radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to
something it not is designed for? Does it disturb your nightsky? (just
kidding).

You see there are problems with this approach. I once had a similar
thought. Feel free to check out:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ogle.com#link1

Sincerly
Bjørn Ove


....How do you explauin to russia, japa, europe and
other partners that their property/terretorila borders are being
stuffed around? Why do you want to send a spacestation from where it
is reachable to where it might be reachable by only one rightful
owner?...

The ISS is a 16 nation participation program and the *properties* of
each nation is represented on the Station with its own flag/logo. It
gets "stuffed around" in orbit around the world anyway, so why not
give the Station a meaningful resting place on the near side of the
Moon? As for reach, well that will be phase 2 of the idea i'm
proposing when human crews would need to journey to the Moon and man
the base in the future.


....Perhaps you dont want to do that, but many modules and partners
joined precisly to do microgravity research...

We've been doing 'microgravity' research since the days of Skylab,
Apollo-Soyuz, Salyut, Shuttle, Mir and now the ISS itself with no less
than 8 Expedition crews to date. Total microgravity research for 30
years. Do we need any more?


....move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of power, and for
radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to something it not
is designed for?...

The Lunar surface will be an even better environment for durability of
the ISS components, with more gravity, a stable solid floor
underneath, and not to mention 50% to 75% radiation shielding by the
Moon itself. In its current orbit, the ISS is 100% exposed all around
to both radiation and orbital debris. The thermal balance should be
maintainable on the Moon with minimal changes. In orbit, the ISS goes
through the -200 to +200 degrees of temp. variation on a constant
basis, revolving between the Sun side to the Earth shadow 15 times
every 24 hours. On the Moon, you will get the same cycle repeating but
only just once per month (between full moon and new moon).


....Does it disturb your nightsky?...

No. I actually marvel looking up at the ISS when it glides just 380-km
above my house!

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."
  #6  
Old November 12th 03, 03:31 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

(B. Isaksen) wrote in message
om...

...Perhaps you dont want to do that, but many modules and partners
joined precisly to do microgravity research...


We've been doing 'microgravity' research since the days of Skylab,
Apollo-Soyuz, Salyut, Shuttle, Mir and now the ISS itself with no less
than 8 Expedition crews to date. Total microgravity research for 30
years. Do we need any more?


Yes. We still don't have effective countermeasures for a crew to travel to
Mars, for example, and be able to function effectively in Martian gravity
immediately.

...move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of power, and for
radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to something it not
is designed for?...


The Lunar surface will be an even better environment for durability of
the ISS components, with more gravity, a stable solid floor
underneath, and not to mention 50% to 75% radiation shielding by the
Moon itself.


That's fine once you've got them there, but the modules definitely aren't
designed to survive the journey. Even in LEO, the station gets into thermal
trouble if it's away from its design attitudes for more than a few hours.
You'd need some pretty elaborate thermal control for the modules to survive
a several-days' trip to the moon. The modules will also need a minimum
"keep-alive" level of electrical power. The bottom line is that you can't
just lob the modules at the moon; you will need to attach a rather
elaborate and expensive support structure to them once you've detached them
from the ISS solar arrays and radiators.

Landing the modules will also be non-trivial. Compare an Apollo LM ascent
stage to a typical ISS module, and that will give you an idea of the size
descent stage you'll need to soft-land them on the moon. Actually, you'll
need more than that, since the Apollo LM descent stage was designed to land
from lunar orbit. So you'll either need an additional LOI stage, like the
Apollo SM, or a larger descent stage that can do a direct descent from a
translunar trajectory without having to enter lunar orbit first.

Bottom line is, this idea isn't impossible, but it isn't terribly smart,
either. It would be much cheaper to custom-build an inflatable Transhab-
like lunar habitat and send that to the moon, rather than go to the trouble
of adapting ISS modules to do something they weren't designed to do.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #7  
Old November 12th 03, 10:57 AM
Abdul Ahad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

(B. Isaksen) wrote in message
om...

...Perhaps you dont want to do that, but many modules and partners
joined precisly to do microgravity research...


We've been doing 'microgravity' research since the days of Skylab,
Apollo-Soyuz, Salyut, Shuttle, Mir and now the ISS itself with no less
than 8 Expedition crews to date. Total microgravity research for 30
years. Do we need any more?


Yes. We still don't have effective countermeasures for a crew to travel to
Mars, for example, and be able to function effectively in Martian gravity
immediately.

...move a station that is thermaaly, in terms of power, and for
radiation purposes designed to be close to earth to something it not
is designed for?...


The Lunar surface will be an even better environment for durability of
the ISS components, with more gravity, a stable solid floor
underneath, and not to mention 50% to 75% radiation shielding by the
Moon itself.



Bottom line is, this idea isn't impossible, but it isn't terribly smart,
either. It would be much cheaper to custom-build an inflatable Transhab-
like lunar habitat and send that to the moon, rather than go to the trouble
of adapting ISS modules to do something they weren't designed to do.


I guess the ultimate question is if you're faced with the decision of
either abandoning the Station completely and de-orbiting it to a safe
destruction on re-entry (like the Russian Mir back in 2001) or
adapting the modules for future use in a Moon base...which of the two
options would be "smarter"?

With the current review and debate on the future direction for manned
Spaceflight being undertaken by the Bush administration, the above
question must be ultimately addressed. In any decisions about whether
to continue the Shuttle program or a new orbital space plane (OSP)
concept for the next 20-30 years (just to support Earth orbit-confined
'microgravity' research via the ISS) or set more distant and bigger
goals for achieveing permanent human presence on the Moon or Mars, the
ISS's future will play an integral part in such decisions.

Funding of long range projects like permanent Moon bases and crewed
Mars missions will call for cut backs in funding ISS operations.
Adapting the ISS modules for use in a future Moon base on the other
hand seems logically a sounder option, in my view.
  #10  
Old November 12th 03, 09:04 PM
Abdul Ahad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

Dale wrote in message . ..
On 12 Nov 2003 01:57:22 -0800, (Abdul Ahad)
wrote:

Funding of long range projects like permanent Moon bases and crewed
Mars missions will call for cut backs in funding ISS operations.


Why do you assume that? In the near-term, the major money needed
to fund a Moon base or a Mars mission is unlikely to arrive. By the time
it does, if ever, ISS will probably be near the end of its useful life
anyway.

Adapting the ISS modules for use in a future Moon base on the other
hand seems logically a sounder option, in my view.


But they weren't designed to be a moon base. Why divert/waste money
on doing that, rather than just using them for what they were intended
for, then developing an actual moon base from the start, should the
funding ever become available? If ISS is a bad thing now, why throw good
money after bad trying to turn it into something it was never meant to
be, and would probably fail miserably at?

Dale



I did say the idea was rather 'fanciful'... so its interesting to hear
some counter views. But ultimately, if I had the choice of binning the
ISS or blasting it to the Moonm I know exactly which one I would
choose. 450 metric tonnes of good qaulity hardware, already ferried
somewhere in the order of 80% of the way from Earth surface to the
Moon (measured in terms of launch effort and costs)... just to be
abandoned in the end, sounds a bit wasteful.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars Jon Berndt Space Shuttle 11 February 18th 04 04:07 AM
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon Kent Betts Space Shuttle 2 January 15th 04 01:56 AM
Moon Base, ISS, and Shuttle Replacement Sam Nelson Space Shuttle 2 January 13th 04 03:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.