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

Is the space station a dead end project?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 11th 08, 06:30 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Is the space station a dead end project?


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
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.


Actually, the nodes do double duty as functioning modules, especially Node 3
since the Hab module was cancelled. There was even some serious thought
given to stretching Node 3:

http://images.spaceref.com/nasa/02.23.01.node3.lrg.jpg
http://www.nasawatch.com/iss/02.23.0...hed.node3.html

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #22  
Old March 11th 08, 06:31 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Is the space station a dead end project?


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
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.


That's about as off the shelf as you can get with US automated rendezvous
and docking systems.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #23  
Old March 12th 08, 03:09 AM posted to sci.space.station
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default Is the space station a dead end project?

Jeff Findley wrote:
"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.


Right - he told us all it would employ Russian engineers so they
wouldn't proliferate missile and nuclear technologies to rogue states
like Iran!

Oh, wait... ;-)
  #24  
Old March 13th 08, 12:07 AM posted to sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Is the space station a dead end project?

On Mar 3, 8:35 pm, "kuhnfucius" wrote:
Is the space station a financial obligation thatNASAcongress 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?


ISS would make for a terrific ABL or SBL target, wouldn't it, almost
as good as a returning Shuttle that was already over-loaded with all
of those nifty R&D shuttle prototype thermal sensors that DoD's
Raytheon/TRW and Boeing PhantomWorks had a live link to such thermal
data.
.. - Brad Guth
  #25  
Old March 14th 08, 07:53 AM posted to sci.space.station
Monte Davis Monte Davis is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Sep 2005
Posts: 466
Default Is the space station a dead end project?

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

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...


Can't be emphasized enough: this is materially different from the flip
(and widespread) version Revision advances. (NB also that the
1955-vintage Von Braun station was to have been built by a "shuttle"
itself larger than the Saturn V... so multiple components of the
over-all agenda were shifting, without enough clear thought about the
shifting dependencies.)

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).


That was the largest single factor at work, but there were at least
two others.

One was a reluctance to accept just how much the mass costs of
reusability (wings, TPS, landing gear, heavier airframe) were cutting
into payload -- both in the early architectural debates and as the
chosen architecture turned into hard specs. One way to deal with that
was to keep increasing the projected flight rate, but there was also a
tendency to think "OK, if we have to go bigger at least we claw back a
little more payload."

Another, as it gradually became clear that we wouldn't come up with a
robust metal skin, was that a bigger planform with a bigger empty bay
*did* at least ease the heat loads on re-entry.

I'm not saying either of those, or both plus gaining USAF support, was
a *good* argument. In retrospect, it's clear that "reusability" plus
"robust operations" plus "much cheaper $/kg to orbit" in one iteration
was a bridge too far with *any* architecture or *any* budget (and IMHO
still is, even with "magical New Space efficiencies and markets" added
to the mix.) But I was talking to those involved as it happened from
1972 on, and all three were part of their thinking.



Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com/
  #26  
Old March 14th 08, 06:20 PM posted to sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Is the space station a dead end project?

Monte Davis wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

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).


That was the largest single factor at work, but there were at least
two others.

One was a reluctance to accept just how much the mass costs of
reusability (wings, TPS, landing gear, heavier airframe) were cutting
into payload


[....]

Another, as it gradually became clear that we wouldn't come up with a
robust metal skin, was that a bigger planform with a bigger empty bay
*did* at least ease the heat loads on re-entry.


Indeed - many seem to miss that Shuttle was already growing for a
variety of reasons before NASA started romancing the DoD. (Mostly
because that shoots holes in the cherished 'DoD killed the Shuttle'
meme.) At most the DoD angle filled in some details, but not the
gross architecture.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #27  
Old March 18th 08, 12:09 AM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Is the space station a dead end project?


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Indeed - many seem to miss that Shuttle was already growing for a
variety of reasons before NASA started romancing the DoD. (Mostly
because that shoots holes in the cherished 'DoD killed the Shuttle'
meme.) At most the DoD angle filled in some details, but not the
gross architecture.


I'll agree that the gross architecture was dictated by the limited budget.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #28  
Old March 30th 08, 05:10 AM posted to sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Is the space station a dead end project?

On Mar 3, 8:35 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?


Relocate ISS to the moon's L1, or why not Venus L2 ?
.. - Brad Guth
  #29  
Old March 31st 08, 03:00 AM posted to sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Is the space station a dead end project?

BradGuth wrote:

Relocate ISS to the moon's L1, or why not Venus L2 ?
. - Brad Guth



Space station Alpha belongs On the moon.

Remember that station Alpha has originally been designed to be on the
moon by 1999. Budget cuts may have scaled it down, but it still has
remnants of the original plans, including the extendable landing gears.

Thankfully, they never built the nuclear reactors that might have
exploded and propelled the moon out of earth's orbit, hurtling to
distant worlds with various humanoid life forms that all spoke english.
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 AM.


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.