|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long Duration Habitat for ISS? | David Spain | Technology | 13 | September 4th 09 05:03 PM |
Adding a long duration habitation module to ISS? | David Spain | Policy | 16 | July 20th 09 10:37 PM |
Micro gravity and long duration flights. | Brian Gaff | Space Station | 1 | April 21st 09 12:22 PM |
First ESA long-duration mission onboard the ISS given 1 July start | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 5 | June 19th 06 03:08 AM |
First long-duration mission for an ESA astronaut onboard the ISS(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | February 24th 06 04:34 AM |