Space Island Group

I'm curious why nobody has posted anything regarding Space Island Groups
approach towards building a rather large
space station using the shuttle's external tanks. Perhaps a few here can
shed some light on the matter.

Here's the link to their page. Seems they've gone through a lot of work
already, though I haven't seen any really
current updates on building a station.

http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html

"S H" wrote in news:LIA0g.23020$s%6.2733@dukeread02:

I'm curious why nobody has posted anything regarding Space Island Groups
approach towards building a rather large
space station using the shuttle's external tanks. Perhaps a few here can
shed some light on the matter.

It's not going to happen. There are, at most, nineteen shuttle flights
remaining in the program. Their site also contains the incorrect statement
that the ET is carried to orbit already on each shuttle flight. In reality
the ET is released on a suborbital trajectory and carrying it the rest of
the way to orbit will cost propellant, which is something that most of the
remaining flights (ISS assembly flights packed to capacity) cannot spare.

--
JRF

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

In reality the ET is released on a suborbital trajectory and carrying
it the rest of the way to orbit will cost propellant, which is
something that most of the remaining flights (ISS assembly flights
packed to capacity) cannot spare.

Yes, given the "packed to capacity" this is true.

The real problem with the concept of making a station from spent fuel
tanks, though, is how to supply the rest of the station, other than
the structure. Cooling/heating, solar panels (or other power source),
electrical distribution, etc, etc all need to be added. Inflating
something inside the tank is perhaps promising. But still, adding
labor for people to do on-orbit is problematic.

So even aside from the issues specific to the shuttle external tank,
I'm not sure this is a promising idea.

But still, adding
labor for people to do on-orbit is problematic.

So even aside from the issues specific to the shuttle external tank,
I'm not sure this is a promising idea.

Well, it seems this isn't a first idea...
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/g...facility.shtml

of course, I'm no scientist, but it seems every hurdle has been looked at
except as you mentioned, the labor aspect.

I personally think the SIG concept of sending up a second ET attached in
place of the shuttle as a huge station itself would be
an attractive idea.

How many spare and continuous terawatts of clean energy does SIG want
to export towards mother Earth?

How does having 1e9 m3 of an SIG abode that's safely located in the
most energy efficient location that's more than sufficiently near Earth
as well as always that of our moon. Is any of that something SIG is
interested in?
-
Brad Guth

Jim Kingdon wrote in
news
In reality the ET is released on a suborbital trajectory and carrying
it the rest of the way to orbit will cost propellant, which is
something that most of the remaining flights (ISS assembly flights
packed to capacity) cannot spare.

Yes, given the "packed to capacity" this is true.

The real problem with the concept of making a station from spent fuel
tanks, though, is how to supply the rest of the station, other than
the structure. Cooling/heating, solar panels (or other power source),
electrical distribution, etc, etc all need to be added. Inflating
something inside the tank is perhaps promising.

If you're going to bother inflating something, just use one of Bigelow's
inflatable habitats and forget the tank - this technology has already been
proven to be quite impact-resistant.

So even aside from the issues specific to the shuttle external tank,
I'm not sure this is a promising idea.

True.

--
JRF

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

If you're going to bother inflating something, just use one of Bigelow's
inflatable habitats and forget the tank - this technology has already been
proven to be quite impact-resistant.

Agreed.

Using spent fuel tanks sounds good, but once you start looking at the
details, it isn't clear that it buys you anything. Skylab looked at
using spent fuel tanks but eventually decided against it.