A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old September 19th 08, 04:14 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Shuttle program extension?


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
A escape pod only needs consumables for a few hours. Enough to drop
below the station, wait one or 2 orbits and fire de-orbit engine to
target some ocean and drop into water somewhere, and from there, just
float until rescued.

This is an emergency vehicle, not a cruise ship, it need not have fancy
stuff inside.


Using ATV as a starting point, a free flying safe haven would likely be much
less expensive to develop than a reentry vehicle which would use ATV's
service module. Consumables (O2, H2O and food) are cheap.

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


Ads
  #143  
Old September 20th 08, 07:29 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Shuttle program extension?



Jeff Findley wrote:

So what? A pound of water is a hell of a lot cheaper than a pound of
extruded aluminum, a pound of machined titanium, or a pound of TPS material.
You're falling into the aerospace engineering trap that lighter is always
cheaper.

Why don't you check up on the total amount of water used by weight per
crew member per day on the ISS?
For a crew of four it's 40,000 pounds per year:
http://library.thinkquest.org/J01121...ce_station.htm
starting with that, extrapolating it to a full six-person crew, and it's
60,000 pounds of water per year.
Divide that by four for the intended three month lifespan of your
lifeboat, and you have to drag along 15,000 pounds of water alone to
give the crew something to drink, cook, and wash with while they are
orbiting up there awaiting rescue.
Then stick all the food aboard, the oxygen supplies, the CO2 scrubbers,
and the solar arrays, and your lifeboat is around the weight of two or
three Salyut space stations.
This "lifeboat" is medium-sized space station unto itself as far as mass
goes.
It's like your plan for the orbiting refueling stations; you get so
enraptured by a concept that the actual costs of doing it are ignored,
and what you end up with is doing something fairly simple in a much more
complex and expensive way...due to some sort of preconceived
philosophical conceit in regards to how it _should_ be done in your own
mind, rather than the cheapest way of doing it in reality.

Pat
  #144  
Old September 20th 08, 02:22 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:44:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:25:02 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


Still not small or cheap. Cheaper than Destiny and Columbus, but
that's damning with faint praise. It will be big job to make an
orbital survival shelter.


Why? Sundancer will be a lot cheaper than Orion/Ares...


I hope so, but I'm not counting unhatched chickens lately. :-)


It has to be, because he doesn't have billions to pay for it. Using
Genesis as a baseline, it will be.
  #146  
Old September 20th 08, 04:26 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:35:22 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:44:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:25:02 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


Still not small or cheap. Cheaper than Destiny and Columbus, but
that's damning with faint praise. It will be big job to make an
orbital survival shelter.

Why? Sundancer will be a lot cheaper than Orion/Ares...

I hope so, but I'm not counting unhatched chickens lately. :-)


It has to be, because he doesn't have billions to pay for it. Using
Genesis as a baseline, it will be.


Right. So failure isn't a possibility then. Good to know.


I didn't say that. I just said that if it's built, it will be cheap,
and that there is good reason to think that it will be built, since
his prototypes have been successful.
  #148  
Old September 20th 08, 06:59 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:57:27 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:26:00 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


It has to be, because he doesn't have billions to pay for it. Using
Genesis as a baseline, it will be.

Right. So failure isn't a possibility then. Good to know.


I didn't say that. I just said that if it's built, it will be cheap,
and that there is good reason to think that it will be built, since
his prototypes have been successful.


I don't know... its a long way from a prototype to a real, operational
spacecraft. They've built Echo 1, but we need Telstar.


Prototype or not, Genesis II is a real, operational spacecraft, and
it's been operating for many months now.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_II/

All it lacks, AFAIK, is ECLSS. Add that, scale it up, and you have a
space habitat. Add propulsion, and it can co-orbit with ISS. Bigelow
has already issued a $23M contract for that to Aerojet.
  #149  
Old September 20th 08, 07:41 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:35:22 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:44:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:25:02 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


Still not small or cheap. Cheaper than Destiny and Columbus, but
that's damning with faint praise. It will be big job to make an
orbital survival shelter.

Why? Sundancer will be a lot cheaper than Orion/Ares...

I hope so, but I'm not counting unhatched chickens lately. :-)

It has to be, because he doesn't have billions to pay for it. Using
Genesis as a baseline, it will be.


Right. So failure isn't a possibility then. Good to know.


I didn't say that. I just said that if it's built, it will be cheap,
and that there is good reason to think that it will be built, since
his prototypes have been successful.



Umm, geesh, I'd think after all these years your reading comprehension,
especially of stuff YOU wrote would have improved.

Sadly I continue to be proven wrong.

Let's see... "Sundancer will be..."

And "It has to be... it will be."

Right. I must have missed the conditionals there.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


  #150  
Old September 20th 08, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default Shuttle program extension?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Prototype or not, Genesis II is a real, operational spacecraft, and
it's been operating for many months now.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_II/

All it lacks, AFAIK, is ECLSS. Add that, scale it up, and you have a
space habitat. Add propulsion, and it can co-orbit with ISS. Bigelow
has already issued a $23M contract for that to Aerojet.


Is that all? ECLSS and propulsion? Whew, I was beginning to think they
still had difficult work ahead. "If we had some eggs, we could have ham
and eggs, if we had some ham."

Who are they contracting for the ECLSS? I'm assuming that since they
were smart enough to contract the propulsion, they wouldn't be fool
enough to try to do the ECLSS themselves. But I could be wrong.
 




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
Shuttle program extension? Flyguy Space Shuttle 175 September 22nd 08 04:18 PM
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? Widget Policy 1 July 4th 06 03:51 PM
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! Steve W. Space Shuttle 0 August 9th 05 09:59 PM
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped John Slade Space Shuttle 7 August 2nd 05 04:35 AM
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program JazzMan Space Shuttle 23 February 19th 04 02:21 AM


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


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.