|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |