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

Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn't looklike a giant satellite?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 08, 01:11 AM posted to sci.space.station
thepursuit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn't looklike a giant satellite?

For obvious reasons I can understand most of the ISS countries aren't
too concerned with aesthetics, but wouldn't it help the public image and
legitimacy of it among non-space people if it didn't look like a bunch
of pipes and solar panels?

If it was a solid structure with the modules internal, and a big
readable (at least from space) "International Space Station" on it,
people would be more inclined to believe we're much more into space than
it may seem (since it's mostly research stations for now, regular people
won't give a ****).

Cover it with a giant shell which is also covered in solar panels, and
we'd have an awesome space station going.
  #2  
Old May 19th 08, 05:34 AM posted to sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,316
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn't look like a giant satellite?

(top posted) - Is it school holidays somewhere? This is the second message
from this person (the other in ss.shuttle) that just doesn't add up.

"thepursuit" wrote in message
...
For obvious reasons I can understand most of the ISS countries aren't
too concerned with aesthetics, but wouldn't it help the public image and
legitimacy of it among non-space people if it didn't look like a bunch
of pipes and solar panels?

If it was a solid structure with the modules internal, and a big
readable (at least from space) "International Space Station" on it,
people would be more inclined to believe we're much more into space than
it may seem (since it's mostly research stations for now, regular people
won't give a ****).

Cover it with a giant shell which is also covered in solar panels, and
we'd have an awesome space station going.



  #3  
Old May 19th 08, 06:04 AM posted to sci.space.station
thepursuit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn'tlook like a giant satellite?

Merely posting a thought I had a few days ago, apologies if it doesn't
add up for you

Alan Erskine wrote:
(top posted) - Is it school holidays somewhere? This is the second message
from this person (the other in ss.shuttle) that just doesn't add up.

"thepursuit" wrote in message
...
For obvious reasons I can understand most of the ISS countries aren't
too concerned with aesthetics, but wouldn't it help the public image and
legitimacy of it among non-space people if it didn't look like a bunch
of pipes and solar panels?

If it was a solid structure with the modules internal, and a big
readable (at least from space) "International Space Station" on it,
people would be more inclined to believe we're much more into space than
it may seem (since it's mostly research stations for now, regular people
won't give a ****).

Cover it with a giant shell which is also covered in solar panels, and
we'd have an awesome space station going.



  #5  
Old May 19th 08, 11:19 AM posted to sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn'tlook like a giant satellite?

In terms of the USA segment, the current design is actually fairly neat.
Nodes to which you can attach a number of tin cans. And the CBM design
for how those tin cans dock to each other is far mroe advanced than
previous designs, allowing for most connections to happen inside the
pressurised space.

The concept of the MPLM was brilliant for moving cargo to/from the station.

The fact that the solar arrays are so big compared to the station is
just an indication of the difficulties in building structures that can
actually do stuff in space. You need a lot of solar arrays to power the
station.

While the truss segment is not "cosmetic", it has some neat concepts,
such as rotating joints, and the mobile transporter than can move the
arms around. And the space station arm itself is also a fairly
sophisticated and very useful tool to work in space.

And when the cupola is finally launched, the crews will finally have
usable windows. (do they ever use the WORF anymore ?)

I would think the biggest failure is the lack of windows on the USA
segment. The russian segment has a number of windows, but they are small.

When Bush decided to kill the shuttle, he should have ordered a few
additional cupollas to be berthed in every free CBM hatch on the station.



The station is a long way from the sleek ones portrayed in 2001 a space
odyssey, or other science fiction series since then. We are still at our
infancy with space structures, but what they developped for ISS could
become quite useful for long trips to mars. And the experience gained
from trying to operate the ISS will also teach us what works reliable,
what doesn't and what can and cannot be fixed in space. And that is very
important.
  #6  
Old May 19th 08, 03:59 PM posted to sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn't look like a giant satellite?

John Doe wrote:

I would think the biggest failure is the lack of windows on the USA
segment. The russian segment has a number of windows, but they are small.


Beyond something like the WORF, and few windows to observe work areas,
window aren't really useful on a space station.

The station is a long way from the sleek ones portrayed in 2001 a space
odyssey, or other science fiction series since then.


Mostly because the ISS has to work in the real world, while fictional
stations don't. Comparing them is stupid.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #7  
Old May 22nd 08, 09:06 AM posted to sci.space.station
Revision[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn't look like a giant satellite?

Alpha is an odd looking critter, and yeah I wish it looked like the 2001
Space Odyssey version. What I wonder about is the future of the thing ...
no one seems to put a date on any retirement. I assume that it will be kept
running indefinitely, or that is to say as long as the users have sufficient
pull with various govt funding sources.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
  #8  
Old May 24th 08, 09:15 PM posted to sci.space.station
MO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn'tlook like a giant satellite?

On May 18, 5:11 pm, thepursuit wrote:
For obvious reasons I can understand most of the ISS countries aren't
too concerned with aesthetics, but wouldn't it help the public image and
legitimacy of it among non-space people if it didn't look like a bunch
of pipes and solar panels?

If it was a solid structure with the modules internal, and a big
readable (at least from space) "International Space Station" on it,
people would be more inclined to believe we're much more into space than
it may seem (since it's mostly research stations for now, regular people
won't give a ****).

Cover it with a giant shell which is also covered in solar panels, and
we'd have an awesome space station going.


Seems to me that the ISS design is strictly utilitarian. There is not
wieght allocation to make it "pretty"

It wil lbe up the the commercial ventures like Bigelow to make their
space hotels more visually appealing. There will be a whole new branch
of architecture...space architecture.
  #9  
Old May 27th 08, 02:57 AM posted to sci.space.station
Rocket
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn't look like a giant satellite?

WORF flies sometime later in 2009. There are multiple
experiments planned for its use when it is installed. The Lab
window is used stand-alone in the meantime for both crew
preference photography as well as science, as are the plethora
of windows in the Russian segment...

"John Doe" wrote in message
...

And when the cupola is finally launched, the crews will
finally have
usable windows. (do they ever use the WORF anymore ?)



  #10  
Old May 27th 08, 05:57 AM posted to sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Would the ISS get more general population support if it didn'tlook like a giant satellite?

Rocket wrote:
WORF flies sometime later in 2009.


Are there issues with using the window now ? Seems we don't see the
crews using it anymore. Do they use it for the shuttle inspection
pictures when the shuttle back flips ?

Once they plug the window with the rack, will it become unusable by
humans for sightseeing or taking pictures of the shuttle ?
 




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
Satellite communications for security support at G8 summit (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 June 7th 07 05:11 AM
[Fwd: General Quarters General Quarters---Attention Nightbat FromEarthCalling Commander Pros---Over] nightbat Misc 2 May 31st 05 12:01 PM
General Quarters General Quarters---Attention Nightbat From EarthCalling Commander Pros---Over nightbat Misc 0 May 30th 05 09:24 AM
Population: The Final Frontier?? Max Keon Astronomy Misc 0 February 13th 05 06:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 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.