Abandon the space station?

John Doe writes:
Look at Elektron. It hasn't exactly been very reliable as of late. And you'd
think that Russia would have gotten it right after all the experience in Mir
(did Mir have an elektron or did it rely only on candles and O2 supply from
Progress ?)

I believe they did. They also had problems with it on Mir and had to
burn SFOG's as a result.

And if they can't get Elektron to work reliably, but they know that for the
first 6 months, it works well, then they'll just have to load multiple
Elektrons on a ship to mars, so that they can have reliable O2 generation for
the duration of the flight.

Elektron failure seems to be a constant annoyance. This is clearly
not acceptable for trips to Mars.

This is exactly the type of work the US needs to be doing on ISS.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:


ISSS has been in the planning and construction phases since 1992. Before
that we were planning Freedom for many years, but never got much done.

No, it was Space Station Freedom all the way through CDR in the spring
of 1993. It was briefly "Alpha" during the summer/fall timeframe during
the time the Russians were climbing aboard and turned into "ISS" shortly
thereafter.

And it is not a test bed to test tech for Mars. In fact, Congress in the
past few years made it clear that NASA could NOT test Mars bound tech on the
station (witness the fate of transhab.)

SSF was supposed to be - that's what the closed-loop ECLSS was for, the
on-orbit assembly/maintenance experience was to lead up to, and the
planning and logistics for multinational/multiyear missions was supposed
to culminate in.

However, once ISS scaled back the original lifetime to 15 years (rather
than 30) - half of which or more is being used up in a drawn-out
assembly sequence - and once the systems requirements deleted, delayed
or pushed waaaay down the line all the real interesting and useful stuff
(closed loop ECLSS, 8 person crew, deleting Lab "B" and both Habs,
delaying the centrifuge module, delaying Columbus and Kibo labs,
deletion of Nodes 3 and 4, etc), real tangible benefits for any kind of
additional mission (whether to the Moon, Mars or anywhere) are hard to
find.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Why not boost the ISS to the orbit of Mars using a Proton Rocket? It will
then become the Earth-to-Mars Spaceship.

Before the big send-off, stuff it full of supplies and attach a lander to
make it a complete package. No ascent from the Red Planet need be planned.

For pennies on the dollar we can initiate manned missions to Mars as
proposed by President Bush ahead of schedule and kill two birds with one
stone (get rid of the ISS and the Shuttle).

Extra supplies can be easily ferried to the ISS now in Mars orbit via
unmanned Russian Soyuz rockets. The supplies can then be dropped out of
orbit to the ground crew who will establish a permanent base of operations
on the surface. The ISS will house spare crew members who can deorbit in
additional landers ferried from Earth by Soyuz.

Its a perfect plan. The idea of returning men to Earth from Mars is
foolishness. It is technically at the limit of technology, beyond economic
feasibility and too dangerous to think about. Besides, once men get to
Mars, they won't want to leave anyways.

Bringing the Chinese on board will speed things up considerably, perhaps
the first landing within five years.

(Hallerb) wrote:


Yeah BUT ISS is never going to produce much science return,

Cite please?

Please cite the plans for world class science

In other words, you are unwilling to support your assertions with
actual fact.

Again.

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

Derek Lyons wrote:

(Hallerb) wrote:
Cite please?

Please cite the plans for world class science

In other words, you are unwilling to support your assertions with
actual fact.

Again.

Yeppers, hallerb will ask for cites, but when asked for one, there is
none
to be seen. ISTM that a month or two ago in s.s.h. that he admitted to
being too busy to do any real research. It is my WAG that the bulk
of his reading is done on the s.s. newsgroups.

BTW, what the hell does "World Class" mean? I have seen some rather
unremarkable things labeled "World Class".

Sam "Using a world class newsreader" Seiber

In other words, you are unwilling to support your assertions with
actual fact.

Again.

I merely point out that ISS is a looser science wise.

If it wasnt you woul;d have lots to post....

sadly theres little to discuss and as proof positive bush has ditched the
present experiments for a new direction, long term endurance in space... so the
present ones were loosers..........
Hey this is my opinion

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Not likely. The US is planning to remain in the ISS program until
2016. Even then, the station will not necessarily be deorbited - the
US will simply pull out of the program and the international partners
will decide what to do with the station, which by then will be past
its design lifetime.

I thought that one of the main marketing points to justify the
super-high cost of the ISS, was that it would be permanent.

"Permanent" never means "eternal" in the space business. All spacecraft
have a design lifetime. Mir had a design lifetime of 5 years, SSF 30 years,
and ISS 15 years. That doesn't mean that the station is useless immediately
after reaching its design lifetime - Mir lasted 15 years, after all - but
it does mean that maintenance will become increasingly expensive once the
design lifetime is reached.

I agree that "permanent" doesn't mean "forever", but I would have
thought that the design life of a $100 billion space station would be a
lot longer than 10-12 years (it is partially operational in 2004 and you
cite 2016 as "past its design lifetime").

I would have thought that given that expenditure and number of shuttle
flights used to build it, that it would be used for at least 30 years
with periodic maintenance.

As long as no new, large components are required, Soyuz, Progress, and the
other the various capsule based systems should be able to handle the
sustaining transport. Major damage to the solar arrays or radiators, etc.
could be a different story.

Removing NASA as the primary funder of US participation does not
automatically mean no participation. The sustaining program could be
funded under the NSF similarly to the antarctic stations. NASA might
stay on to provide certain special training or support services, similar
to those provided by the Coast Guard, Navy, and National Guard on the
south pole.

"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" wrote
in message news:e267af26ac860f5365bd44c61a28634e@cypherpunks. to...
Why not boost the ISS to the orbit of Mars using a Proton Rocket? It will
then become the Earth-to-Mars Spaceship.

Umm, how do you plan on getting the full Proton to ISS?


Before the big send-off, stuff it full of supplies and attach a lander to
make it a complete package. No ascent from the Red Planet need be
planned.

In other words, increase its mass even more?

Also, how do you plan on dealing with radiation issues on the trip to Mars?

Finally how do you expect to stop once you get there?


For pennies on the dollar we can initiate manned missions to Mars as
proposed by President Bush ahead of schedule and kill two birds with one
stone (get rid of the ISS and the Shuttle).


You'd be killing more than those two stones. Like the astronauts on board.


Extra supplies can be easily ferried to the ISS now in Mars orbit via
unmanned Russian Soyuz rockets. The supplies can then be dropped out of
orbit to the ground crew who will establish a permanent base of operations
on the surface. The ISS will house spare crew members who can deorbit in
additional landers ferried from Earth by Soyuz.


And exactly how much mass do you think Soyuz can boost to Mars?


Its a perfect plan.

Except for details like radiation, thrust, etc.

The idea of returning men to Earth from Mars is
foolishness. It is technically at the limit of technology, beyond
economic
feasibility and too dangerous to think about. Besides, once men get to
Mars, they won't want to leave anyways.



Bringing the Chinese on board will speed things up considerably, perhaps
the first landing within five years.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
:

I agree that "permanent" doesn't mean "forever", but I would have
thought that the design life of a $100 billion space station would be
a lot longer than 10-12 years (it is partially operational in 2004 and
you cite 2016 as "past its design lifetime").

I would have thought that given that expenditure and number of shuttle
flights used to build it, that it would be used for at least 30 years
with periodic maintenance.

Of course. Don't engage in the fallacy of seeing a design lifetime as a
hard limit. My house was built in 1978 and the roof and almost all the
appliances that came with it had 15-20 year design lifetimes. Guess what -
my house is still habitable in 2004, but I had to pay a pretty penny to
replace the roof and all those appliances. Same with ISS - it will remain
usable past its design lifetime, but the periodic maintenance will get more
expensive.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

I agree that "permanent" doesn't mean "forever", but I would have
thought that the design life of a $100 billion space station would be
a lot longer than 10-12 years (it is partially operational in 2004 and
you cite 2016 as "past its design lifetime").

I would have thought that given that expenditure and number of shuttle
flights used to build it, that it would be used for at least 30 years
with periodic maintenance.

Of course. Don't engage in the fallacy of seeing a design lifetime as a
hard limit. My house was built in 1978 and the roof and almost all the
appliances that came with it had 15-20 year design lifetimes. Guess what -
my house is still habitable in 2004, but I had to pay a pretty penny to
replace the roof and all those appliances. Same with ISS - it will remain
usable past its design lifetime, but the periodic maintenance will get more
expensive.

As massive as that structure is, I would think that 30-50 years design
life for the basic structure would be more like it.

Letting something that big have its orbit decay after its usage is
terminated, could be a really big problem if it comes down in the wrong
place, could be like an asteroid impact. Mounting retro-rockets to
de-orbit it in a controlled fashion, could be a real engineering
challenge.

Has there been actual planning of what to do with ISS after its usage is
some day terminated? Or will it be permanently kept in orbit (problems
with that alternative also)?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com