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?

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

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:33:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:


If anything we should turn ISS over to the private sector like the
ARPAnet became the internet awhile back.

The private sector can't afford it. They probably can't afford 25% of
the cost. ISS is going to be government-operated until the day it is
deorbited, they might eventually get some private sector
participation, but they'll need the government, mostly the U.S., to
finance the bulk of the upkeep costs.

Brian

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

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

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.

"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

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.

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

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