Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?

Derek Lyons wrote:
David Spain wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Is anyone else thinking along these lines?
No.

If for nothing else because it's monumentally stupid - because you
aren't going to get all that in a single module or small group of
modules. You've described a complete small station in it's own right.

D.
OK, scale it down. I picked the number 3 so that someone was always
'on call' 24/7. Let's say it only has to support 1 person.

Still too big, too complex, too much of a hit on station resources and
performance.

Citations and references for those assertions please.

A 1 man habitat, that I postulate could bring up its own solar arrays
and dock its own capsule. Something along the size of a ground based cargo
container, could not do this and would be too much of a burden on ISS? Why?

I don't understand why you think it is 'monumentally stupid'. There is
no other way to reach the planets w/o this technology, short of
un-obtainium.

It's monumentally stupid for two reasons - a) the impact on the ISS,
and b) the lack of supporting technology.

Item 'a' we've discussed, can you provide some examples for item b?
What are some of the supporting technologies you consider missing. CO2 scrubbing?
H2O recycling? Hydroponic farming? Solar electric power generation? Space
capsules? Heavy lift launcher? Ground to space communication? ???

I'm suggesting an enhancement to the ISS to enable at least the study,
you seem to be suggesting it would take another project at least on the
ISS scale. Is that correct?

I'm suggesting you're putting the cart before the horse and running
before you can walk. For someone so desperately interested in long
duration life support you appear to have done essentially no research
on the matter - despite having been battered in these discussions
before for lack of said research.

D.

I'd use the noun badgered instead of battered, but that's a difference
of opinion.

Educate me. Links, cites, references, studies, book references all welcome.
Where did I say I already know the answers to these questions? I'm posting here
to know where to start looking among other things.

I know about the 'Space Habitat' work done in Arizona some time back, but
it always seemed to me to be on the 'fringe' of serious science, w/o the
backing of either serious aerospace players or the government labs, etc.
that I'd have expected to see.

Surely what I'm suggesting could also be down initially 'on the ground' in
a prototype before anything is flown. What work can folks point me to?

Dave

with ISS scheduled to be deorbited into the pacific in 2015 you are
out of time

its a worthy idea
so the crew doesnt die for the lack of a 3 / 16 bolt on way to mars

but the 39 day booster can solve the travel time issues

bob haller wrote:
but the 39 day booster can solve the travel time issues

I'll believe it when I see it in operation.

Dave

bob haller wrote:
with ISS scheduled to be deorbited into the pacific in 2015 you are
out of time


At that is solely a US decision to make? What do the Russians say about that?
I don't remember reading that there is consensus on this issue. Is there?
Maybe I missed it.

Dave

David Spain wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
David Spain wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Is anyone else thinking along these lines?
No.

If for nothing else because it's monumentally stupid - because you
aren't going to get all that in a single module or small group of
modules. You've described a complete small station in it's own right.

D.
OK, scale it down. I picked the number 3 so that someone was always
'on call' 24/7. Let's say it only has to support 1 person.

Still too big, too complex, too much of a hit on station resources and
performance.

Citations and references for those assertions please.

A 1 man habitat, that I postulate could bring up its own solar arrays
and dock its own capsule.

If you are going to go to that trouble - why bother to dock it to ISS
in the first place?

Something along the size of a ground based cargo container,

What size ground based cargo container? There are four different ones
you know.

could not do this and would be too much of a burden on ISS? Why?

In the first place, it's likely to be to small. In the second, it's
going to alter the mass, drag, and CG of the station with no return on
the station's primary mission.

I don't understand why you think it is 'monumentally stupid'. There is
no other way to reach the planets w/o this technology, short of
un-obtainium.

It's monumentally stupid for two reasons - a) the impact on the ISS,
and b) the lack of supporting technology.

Item 'a' we've discussed, can you provide some examples for item b?
What are some of the supporting technologies you consider missing. CO2 scrubbing?
H2O recycling? Hydroponic farming? Solar electric power generation? Space
capsules? Heavy lift launcher? Ground to space communication? ???

How many of those techs have been proven in ground based research for
the periods of time required? How many of *those* have done the work
to become space qualified?

I'm suggesting an enhancement to the ISS to enable at least the study,
you seem to be suggesting it would take another project at least on the
ISS scale. Is that correct?

I'm suggesting you're putting the cart before the horse and running
before you can walk. For someone so desperately interested in long
duration life support you appear to have done essentially no research
on the matter - despite having been battered in these discussions
before for lack of said research.

D.

I'd use the noun badgered instead of battered, but that's a difference
of opinion.

That's the usual excuse of people who either don't want to do their
homework, or believe they are infallible and aren't required to do
their homework.

Educate me. Links, cites, references, studies, book references all welcome.
Where did I say I already know the answers to these questions? I'm posting here
to know where to start looking among other things.

If you want answers, ask questions. If you want to battered, make
proposals without having done your homework.

I know about the 'Space Habitat' work done in Arizona some time back, but
it always seemed to me to be on the 'fringe' of serious science, w/o the
backing of either serious aerospace players or the government labs, etc.
that I'd have expected to see.

Even a modicum of research and little thinking would have shown why
what you expected to see wasn't there. Look up the biographies of the
first crew. Look up the biographies of the original concievers and
developers.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
If you are going to go to that trouble - why bother to dock it to ISS
in the first place?

I covered that in my OP. You might not, but then it seems perverse to
me not to. Why have two completely separate manned orbiting programs?
And what to do if something goes wrong? Together you might have some
options, singly your only option may be to return home.

Something along the size of a ground based cargo container,

What size ground based cargo container? There are four different ones
you know.

If I knew the answer I'd tell you. I don't. Not yet anyway.

could not do this and would be too much of a burden on ISS? Why?

In the first place, it's likely to be to small.
I don't know that to be true, I have four sizes to choose from.
Why do you say likely?

In the second, it's
going to alter the mass, drag, and CG of the station with no return on
the station's primary mission.

All true as with any mod to the station.

Well what exactly *is* the station's primary mission, say after 2015?
That seems to depend on who you talk to. Are you saying the mission is
set in stone and cannot be changed?

I don't understand why you think it is 'monumentally stupid'. There is
no other way to reach the planets w/o this technology, short of
un-obtainium.
It's monumentally stupid for two reasons - a) the impact on the ISS,
and b) the lack of supporting technology.

Item 'a' we've discussed, can you provide some examples for item b?
What are some of the supporting technologies you consider missing. CO2 scrubbing?
H2O recycling? Hydroponic farming? Solar electric power generation? Space
capsules? Heavy lift launcher? Ground to space communication? ???

How many of those techs have been proven in ground based research for
the periods of time required? How many of *those* have done the work
to become space qualified?

Of those ones that I've mentioned, all except for hydroponic farming, since
they either are or have been in in-flight operation.

I'm suggesting an enhancement to the ISS to enable at least the study,
you seem to be suggesting it would take another project at least on the
ISS scale. Is that correct?
I'm suggesting you're putting the cart before the horse and running
before you can walk. For someone so desperately interested in long
duration life support you appear to have done essentially no research
on the matter - despite having been battered in these discussions
before for lack of said research.

D.
I'd use the noun badgered instead of battered, but that's a difference
of opinion.

That's the usual excuse of people who either don't want to do their
homework, or believe they are infallible and aren't required to do
their homework.

I'm not interested in excuses, just answers.


Educate me. Links, cites, references, studies, book references all welcome.
Where did I say I already know the answers to these questions? I'm posting here
to know where to start looking among other things.

If you want answers, ask questions. If you want to battered, make
proposals without having done your homework.


Well that's truly a subjective statement I can't argue with. What's sufficient
homework, when I'm not even sure of the assignment? Sure I can ask questions,
and when I have specific ones, I'll post, but this is a *policy* newsgroup.
Isn't there a little leeway here for some speculation? C'mon cut me some slack.

I know about the 'Space Habitat' work done in Arizona some time back, but
it always seemed to me to be on the 'fringe' of serious science, w/o the
backing of either serious aerospace players or the government labs, etc.
that I'd have expected to see.

Even a modicum of research and little thinking would have shown why
what you expected to see wasn't there. Look up the biographies of the
first crew. Look up the biographies of the original concievers and
developers.


Oh I can guess. If it was that important to me to know, I would.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
bob haller wrote:
but the 39 day booster can solve the travel time issues

I'll believe it when I see it in operation.

You just wait, mate!
This thing is the Norweigan Blue Parrot of rocket engines, and it's
going to tear you a new one when it comes off that perch and spreads
the bars wide with its wings. :-D

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


David Spain wrote:
bob haller wrote:
but the 39 day booster can solve the travel time issues

I'll believe it when I see it in operation.

You just wait, mate!
This thing is the Norweigan Blue Parrot of rocket engines, and it's
going to tear you a new one when it comes off that perch and spreads
the bars wide with its wings. :-D

Pat


Norweigan Blue? Pinning for the fjords is it?
And just hows it going to come off that perch when its nailed to it mate?

:-D

Dave

I call attention to this slide attributed to Buzz Aldrin as presented
to an audience at the National Air And Space Museum this past Sunday
by NASA Watch.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...s_on.html#more

I could not help but noticing the *first* item on this slide once
you get past the next 4 STS missions.

Larger more readable version available he

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/buzz.nasm.jpg

Dave

David Spain wrote:
I call attention to this slide attributed to Buzz Aldrin as presented
to an audience at the National Air And Space Museum this past Sunday
by NASA Watch.

As reported by NASA Watch.

Dave