|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
Is the space station a financial obligation that NASA congress desires to
get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not finance? I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into obsolesete out post by 2015. Perhaps the DOE will have something else have another target to practice on? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
On Mar 3, 11:35*pm, "kuhnfucius" wrote:
Is the space station a financial obligation that NASA congress desires to get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not finance? *I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. *The space station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into obsolesete out post by 2015. *Perhaps the DOE will have something else have another target to practice on? Think Space Lab, and from Europe, Japan and US. All have utility with ISS. The Russians simply like having people in space so they'll want to keep ISS alive. If anything we should turn ISS over to the private sector like the ARPAnet became the internet awhile back. Eric |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:35:15 -0500, "kuhnfucius"
wrote: Is the space station a financial obligation that NASA congress desires to get rid of for future & with hope pointing to projects they may or may not finance? I think it is hugely unlikely that the President and Congress will allow NASA to walk away from ISS in 2015. If ISS is still functional, and the odds are it will be through at least 2020, they'll force NASA to continue to use it, "to get the most that we can out of our taxpayer investment". Yes, that means the Moon/Mars plans will be pushed back. Wayyyyy back. I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into obsolesete out post by 2015. To be obsolete, there needs to be something better in orbit. There won't be... ISS will still be by far the most advanced facility in orbit. China's mini-stations and Bigelow's hotels pale in comparison. Brian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
Brian Thorn wrote:
I don't see anyone willing to pickup the ball on this. The space station modules were designed with the shuttle in mind and after the shuttle is gone there will be a great washing of hands and slow decline into obsolesete out post by 2015. To be obsolete, there needs to be something better in orbit. There won't be... ISS will still be by far the most advanced facility in orbit. China's mini-stations and Bigelow's hotels pale in comparison. I suspect niether you nor the quoted poster understand the difference between obsolescent and obsolete. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
Brian Thorn wrote:
and the odds are it will be through at least 2020, they'll force NASA to continue to use it, "to get the most that we can out of our taxpayer investment". Yes, that means the Moon/Mars plans will be pushed back. Wayyyyy back. With the Shuttle gone, the USA will be without cargo capacity to the ISS. And until CEV is functional (if it is ever), it will simply need to buy seats on Suyuz for creemember transport, as well as cargo capacity on Progress and/or ATV. However, the USA will still contribute much to the station, in terms of electrical power, telecommunications, mission control centre, station control, ventilation/cooling, and possibly O2 production and CO2 removal should the USA devices prove to be reliable. But this will not cost the USA that much money. So it should be fairly easy for the USA to continue to fund its new more limited role in the ISS. And strategically, continued funding will pevent the rest of the world from taking over control of the station. The USA will not have anything capable of launching cargo to the ISS, even less new modules, or replacement CMGs or other large items. Canned O2 for Quest (airlock and ECLSS) will need to be shipped on Progress or ATV. In terms of its role, the station is the best platform on which to conduct testing for components for a mars mission. This is especially true if the USA O2 production and CO2 removal units need to be fine tuned/debugged before they can be declared reliable. (same with any closed loop systems with water). Despite its inclination, the ISS *might* be a logical place to assemble a mars expedition ship since it already supports life, has the robotics, telecom and already has regular supplies. If they decide to assemble at a different orbit, then the fate of ISS will be very similar to that of Mir. Once all supply shps will go to the new expedition ship orbit, there just won't be funds left to operate ISS and it will probably then be de-orbited. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
"John Doe" wrote in message ... Brian Thorn wrote: and the odds are it will be through at least 2020, they'll force NASA to continue to use it, "to get the most that we can out of our taxpayer investment". Yes, that means the Moon/Mars plans will be pushed back. Wayyyyy back. With the Shuttle gone, the USA will be without cargo capacity to the ISS. That's the point of the COTS program. Still, if that falls through, there is Progress, ATV, and possibly HTV. And until CEV is functional (if it is ever), it will simply need to buy seats on Suyuz for creemember transport, as well as cargo capacity on Progress and/or ATV. However, the USA will still contribute much to the station, in terms of electrical power, telecommunications, mission control centre, station control, ventilation/cooling, and possibly O2 production and CO2 removal should the USA devices prove to be reliable. But this will not cost the USA that much money. So it should be fairly easy for the USA to continue to fund its new more limited role in the ISS. And strategically, continued funding will pevent the rest of the world from taking over control of the station. The USA will not have anything capable of launching cargo to the ISS, even less new modules, or replacement CMGs or other large items. Again, that's the point of the COTS program. Also, there is the possibility that if Ares/Orion continues that we would see Orion flights to ISS. Canned O2 for Quest (airlock and ECLSS) will need to be shipped on Progress or ATV. ATV is pretty huge. It makes Progress look puny by comparison. In terms of its role, the station is the best platform on which to conduct testing for components for a mars mission. This is especially true if the USA O2 production and CO2 removal units need to be fine tuned/debugged before they can be declared reliable. (same with any closed loop systems with water). Despite its inclination, the ISS *might* be a logical place to assemble a mars expedition ship since it already supports life, has the robotics, telecom and already has regular supplies. I disagree. ISS is in a bad location (the paylod hit to ISS inclination is considerable for all but the Russians who have to launch to that orbit). On top of that, ISS was never designed to be an assembly location. You'd almost certainly have lots of issues to deal with that would require upgrades to ISS. For example, the CMG's might not have enough control authority if you start hanging huge Mars mission modules and stages off of it. If they decide to assemble at a different orbit, then the fate of ISS will be very similar to that of Mir. Once all supply shps will go to the new expedition ship orbit, there just won't be funds left to operate ISS and it will probably then be de-orbited. Possibly, or if it's still useful, it will continue to be used. If the US drops out, that doesn't necessarily mean that Russia, ESA, and Japan will all drop out too. The Russians will happily keep sending people and supplies to ISS, as long as they're paid. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
Jeff Findley wrote:
That's the point of the COTS program. Still, if that falls through, there is Progress, ATV, and possibly HTV. Does anybody really believe that private industry will develop some automated cargo ship with all the guidance systems that would allow it to get near enough the station to be berthed to a CBM hatch in just a couple of years ? The EU had Kurs to use as a template to develop their own system. NASA has none of this that private contractors could use as a template. Developping another ATV is pointless. It would still be limited by the tiny russian hatches. Again, that's the point of the COTS program. Also, there is the possibility that if Ares/Orion continues that we would see Orion flights to ISS. Well, if Orion flies, it may do a couple of weekend camping trips to the moon, but its main purpose will be to act as a ferry to/from the station. If it flies. But that still doesn't solve the issue of cargo. ATV is pretty huge. It makes Progress look puny by comparison. Same tiny russian hatches. Great for food/supplies, but can't bring racks up/down. top of that, ISS was never designed to be an assembly location. You'd almost certainly have lots of issues to deal with that would require upgrades to ISS. For example, the CMG's might not have enough control Upgrades to ISS wouldn't be needed. As you would grow the mars expedition ship, the later's systems would take over or complement from the station's system. When the ship leaves, then the station reverts to its own systems. In terms of assembly capabilities, the station will have great capabilities for that. The arm, the cupolla and exsiting human life support and existing system to bring supplies. If you start from scratch, you will end up with something similar to the station where it will take a very long time before you can start to really do a lot of work there. You'll get a few minimal modules (like Zarya and Zvezda) and until you get large neough structure to support an arm, electrical power etc, then you can't have people stay there for long periods of time. With the station, you start off with all the necessary supplies (ECLSS, Power, telecom) as well as hardware (airlock, arm) needed to do assembly work. The question then becomes: how long would it take to assemble the ship standalone until it has gained all the functions/services that the station can provide. And remember that a mars expedition ship will likely be a international endeavour. Perhaps even the chinese would participate. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
John Doe wrote:
Developping another ATV is pointless. It would still be limited by the tiny russian hatches. Duh. HTV. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give
the Shuttle something to do. In hindsight, the ISS is a rather grandiose project. Perhaps the number of launches budgeted for ISS was determined at a time when STS launch rates were expected to be higher. I think, again in hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules and a few solar panels. The thing is so big now, and such an international effort, that NASA would do well to keep it in operation. If the US has no way to get to ISS after 2012 or whatever, I think the Russians will exercise an increased role in determining what level of activity occurs on the station and who gets to go there .... not claiming salvage rights, but a similar concept. At the very least they will be able to charge a high fee for transport, reboost, etc. I would not expect the Russians to abandon ISS because the ability to fly long duration manned missions carries a lot of status, and because the station is a remarkable machine. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FWD: He's Dead Jim! Saddam Hussen hanged until he was dead, dead, dead! | OM | Policy | 80 | January 9th 07 03:33 AM |
FWD: He's Dead Jim! Saddam Hussen hanged until he was dead, dead, dead! | OM | History | 50 | January 4th 07 05:33 PM |
New Station Crew Docks With Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | October 3rd 05 09:39 AM |
Station crew may speak during moon project announcement | John Doe | Space Station | 1 | January 14th 04 01:45 PM |
is starshine project dead or on hold? | Ronald O. Christian | Satellites | 2 | July 16th 03 08:25 AM |