|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
Revision wrote:
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. The USA still controls electrical generation, ventilation, and command/control and telecom on the station, as well as provide those services to the european and japanese labs. If the USA's O2 generation and CO2 removal end up working reliably, the USA will also provide ECLSS capacity to handle more than 3 crewmembers. (although I am not sure if this week's definition of "assembly complete" inlcudes toilet and other water capabilities on the USA segment.) This means that shuttle or not, the USA will still be making an important contribution and will probably retain rights to a certain number of crewmembers even if the USA has to pay for the transport portion on a Soyuz to send its crewmembers. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:39:37 -0500, John Doe 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 ? Orbital plans to use systems from DART and Orbital Express, which have already flown. Brian |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:43:09 -0600, "Revision"
wrote: 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. And when the orbit was to be 28.5 degrees, giving Shuttle something like 40% more lift to the Station than it can haul to 51.6, requiring fewer flights (modules launched fully loaded, more or less.) I think, again in hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules and a few solar panels. That was the plan. US Lab, US Hab, Kibo, Columbus, and 2 or 3 Nodes. Plus the Truss with two extra sections handling propulsion (P2 and S2). President Clinton killed that. Brian |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:38:15 -0500, John Doe wrote:
(although I am not sure if this week's definition of "assembly complete" inlcudes toilet and other water capabilities on the USA segment.) Most of that stuff goes up on STS-126 and STS-128. Brian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
"Revision" wrote:
It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give the Shuttle something to do. Nope, Shuttle and Station have been part and parcel of The Plan since the 1960's and part of the Vision since the 1930's. Perhaps the number of launches budgeted for ISS was determined at a time when STS launch rates were expected to be higher. Nope. The ISS was designed in the late 80's to early 90's timeframe. I think, again in hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules and a few solar panels. Not counting the Nodes and other essentially structural or semi-inert 'modules', I come up with 8 active modules at current assembly complete. So they didn't miss what you 'think' would be proper by much. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
Revision wrote:
It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give the Shuttle something to do. The Shuttle was part of the Space Station as originally proposed; Nixon said do the Shuttle first, Space Station later. So the fact that the Shuttle can outlast it's original design specs and still build the thing is a tribute to the system. I know it's a horribly expensive system, but it does OK for a prototype. The thing is so big now, and such an international effort, that NASA would do well to keep it in operation. Agreed, the science getting done on ISS gets so little press now, so I hope they can ramp up the science when we go to the 6-man crew. 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 .... The Russians don't supply those Soyuz and Progress flights for free, necessarily. Anything more than they originally agreed to must be procured, making the US a paying customer. Yes, they control the launch, but they want the $$$. Mike Ross |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
"John Doe" wrote in message ... 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. COTS isn't going to use Russian docking ports. COTS will be grabbed by the SSRMS and berthed to a CBM, similar to the MPLM's. 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. Why not? It's concievable that you could launch an Orion unmanned and dock or berth it to ISS. Apollo CSM's and LM's were flown umanned in LEO, so why not Orion? It's also concievable that you could launch an Orion minus its pressurized reentry vehicle and use it to deliver unpressurized cargo to ISS. Note that this is essentially how the Russians stripped down a Progress and used it to launch Piers to ISS. If the Russians can do this, NASA can too. 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. So what? Entire racks are nice to bring up and down, but is NASA really bringing down entire racks today with the shuttle and the MPLM's? 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. That's a lot of hand waving going on there. In the long run, I think it would still be cheaper to launch a new LEO assembly station than pay the payload penalty on every assembly flight to get to ISS. 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. All nice things to have, but I can't imagine the cost savings here would pay for the ongoing payload penalty of launching to ISS. 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. ISS certainly wasn't very big when the SSRMS was added. From NASA's website www.nasa.gov, "Launched on STS-100 (assembly flight 6A) in April 2001, the next generation Canadarm is a bigger, better, smarter version of the space shuttle's robotic arm." Here's a few pictures: http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/0102190.jpg http://www.ik1sld.org/iss_flt6a.htm As you can see, the station at that point included two Russian modules, US Node 1, the US Lab, and one US solar array module. At that point, I'd think you'd have a pretty capable station for use as an assembly location. Note also that the US pressurized modules were launched pretty empty and had to be outfitted using MPLM flights due to the payload hit you take getting to ISS's inclination. If the station were located at KSC's preferred orbital inclination, this would have reduced the total number of US launches needed. 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. You can replicate all of this with maybe six to eight shuttle/Proton sized launches from the US if you choose a sane orbital inclination. 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. Maybe. Unfortunately, NASA is abandoning this approach with Ares/Orion and trying to eliminate orbital assembly from the plan. The only assembly they want in LEO is docking Orion to the huge stack of hardware launched by Ares V. This will do nothing to prepare NASA for how to assemble hardware in LEO for a Mars mission. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
"Revision" wrote in message .. . It looks to me and some others that the ISS was a project devised to give the Shuttle something to do. You're trying to re-write history. Originally the shuttle was to be a manned space vehicle to *service* a LEO space station, which would be launched by the Saturn V. Funding for both wasn't forthcoming, so the station part of the vision was placed on indefinate hold. Furthermore, the shuttle morphed into the much larger vehicle we see today in order to gain political support for the program (i.e. DOD payload and cross-range requirements). This larger payload enabled ESA to build Spacelab as a stop-gap measure since it would be quite some time before an actual space station could be designed and built. 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. A huge part of the problem was the change to the current orbital inclination in order to bring the Russians on board. I woudn't be surprised if this chnage doubled the number of US flights required since modules like the nodes and the labs have to be launched practically empty, requiring several more MPLM flights to outfit them. 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. Maybe with Soyuz flights, but ESA's ATV is far more capable than Progress, so the Russians can't screw over ESA too badly there. And if Japan starts flying HTV, Progress becomes even less necessary. 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. The Russians will keep flying because they keep getting paid for Soyuz seats. Even if all the other international partners abandoned ISS, I'm sure the Russians would keep flying tourists there. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
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. The Russians will keep flying because they keep getting paid for Soyuz seats. Even if all the other international partners abandoned ISS, I'm sure the Russians would keep flying tourists there. Not for very long - as the Russians can't afford to keep it supplied, tourists won't keep them in the black. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is the space station a dead end project?
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:43:09 -0600, "Revision" wrote: 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. And when the orbit was to be 28.5 degrees, giving Shuttle something like 40% more lift to the Station than it can haul to 51.6, requiring fewer flights (modules launched fully loaded, more or less.) No doubt. Using a bunch of MPLM flights to outfit a module is a terribly inefficient way to outfit a module. I think, again in hindsight, that ISS might have been done about as well with 5-6 modules and a few solar panels. That was the plan. US Lab, US Hab, Kibo, Columbus, and 2 or 3 Nodes. Plus the Truss with two extra sections handling propulsion (P2 and S2). President Clinton killed that. But he told us all it would save us money! ;-) Actually, it was clearly a foreign policy move that had nothing to do with saving money. NASA didn't have much of a choice, but the nice thing was that partnering with the Russians meant that NASA didn't have to develop a crew return vehicle just for ISS. Just buy Soyuz flights! And here we are today with nothing changed. The shuttle program is ending and the US is still going to have to pay the Russians for Soyuz flights. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
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 04:33 AM |
FWD: He's Dead Jim! Saddam Hussen hanged until he was dead, dead, dead! | OM | History | 50 | January 4th 07 06:33 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 02:45 PM |
is starshine project dead or on hold? | Ronald O. Christian | Satellites | 2 | July 16th 03 08:25 AM |