ISS till 2028?

On Mar 12, 2:42*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Life extension concepts are being discussed:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/11station/
...one problem in doing this is that, like Mir, you would then be using
equipment that was never rated for anywhere this long of orbital
lifetime, so you can expect a lot of failures as things wear out.

Pat

How could you make ISS "upgradable"? After all, it seems a shame to
de-orbit it just when it gets finished and it has yet to accomplish
anything.

Frogwatch writes:

On Mar 12, 2:42Â*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Life extension concepts are being discussed:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/11station/
...one problem in doing this is that, like Mir, you would then be using
equipment that was never rated for anywhere this long of orbital
lifetime, so you can expect a lot of failures as things wear out.

Pat

How could you make ISS "upgradable"? After all, it seems a shame to
de-orbit it just when it gets finished and it has yet to accomplish
anything.

Keep extending along Truss 1? Close off the inner modules as they become
inhabitable? Like an orbital Scrabble(tm) game.

?

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Frogwatch writes:

On Mar 12, 2:42 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Life extension concepts are being
discussed:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/11station/ ...one
problem in doing this is that, like Mir, you would then be using
equipment that was never rated for anywhere this long of orbital
lifetime, so you can expect a lot of failures as things wear out.

Pat

How could you make ISS "upgradable"? After all, it seems a shame to
de-orbit it just when it gets finished and it has yet to accomplish
anything.

Keep extending along Truss 1? Close off the inner modules as they
become inhabitable? Like an orbital Scrabble(tm) game.


It wouldn't be easy, but I think it's possible you could do it if you really
wanted to.


?

Dave

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

On 3/12/2010 2:32 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:42 am, Pat wrote:
Life extension concepts are being discussed:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/11station/
...one problem in doing this is that, like Mir, you would then be using
equipment that was never rated for anywhere this long of orbital
lifetime, so you can expect a lot of failures as things wear out.

Pat

How could you make ISS "upgradable"? After all, it seems a shame to
de-orbit it just when it gets finished and it has yet to accomplish
anything.

On Mir, the original idea was that the modules could be replaced as they
aged, but that idea was quickly dropped due to budget constraints, and
it still left the problem of what to do as the core module they all
docked to itself aged.
ISS isn't really designed with completely replaceable plug-in modules in
mind, as everything attaches to the core group of manned modules that
form its spine, and you can't start tearing the spine back into pieces
once built.
It is supposed to use replaceable equipment racks inside the shells of
the modules (at least on the US built part), but completely cleaning out
a module and replacing everything in it is going to be a very involved
operation, as well as requiring something bigger than a Progress to
carry up the replacement equipment.

Pat

On 3/12/2010 3:25 PM, David Spain wrote:


Keep extending along Truss 1? Close off the inner modules as they become
inhabitable? Like an orbital Scrabble(tm) game.

I don't know if Truss 1 allows that, and there is the problem of
aerodynamic drag to consider; it's designed the way it is so that drag
doesn't throw it out of alignment as it orbits.
Although the idea of a space station that has a abandoned and decaying
"inner city" section to it as it expands into the suburbs has a great
Babylon 5 feel to it. :-D
The old core section will be where the giant yellow worms live:
http://www.anomalist.com/reports/mir.html
....and evolve into... THE GREEN SLIME!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKESo2ofEcw
I could swear I saw an old episode of Dr. Who where he fought those same
things, and defeated them by being wittier than they were.

Pat

Fred J. McCall writes:

Can't be done. You have to worry about CG and moment arms for
reboost.


Yeah I was wondering about that too. You need to keep (which one, Zarya?) at
least the core module that provides propulsion at the CG to keep it on orbit.

Unless you design something that can mate to it on-axis to provide reboost
if it becomes inoperable. Would that be preferred/less-costly than fixing
it?

?

Dave

Pat Flannery writes:
...
modules (at least on the US built part), but completely cleaning out a module
and replacing everything in it is going to be a very involved operation, as
well as requiring something bigger than a Progress to carry up the replacement
equipment.

So, as I mentioned to Fred, adding an on-axis module with a mating adapter to
the exterior core module?

?

Dave

OM writes:

Only Intel never released the MMX for the P6!

OM

Not as a co-pro, but I'm *pretty* sure MMX hardware went into the chip, let me
check...

Yessir, an a new set of instructions which evolved over time and are now known
as SSE4.2 in the Intel Core Microarchitecture*.

I worked extensively with the i860 which was the first Intel chip to include
MMX style hardware directly in the processor.

Dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMX_(instruction_set)

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:32:27 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

How could you make ISS "upgradable"? After all, it seems a shame to
de-orbit it just when it gets finished and it has yet to accomplish
anything.

Post-2020, replace the solar panels with solar dynamics for more
power/less drag/reduced need for batteries?

Brian

Has anyone run the numbers as to the likelyhood of a killer debris
impact, as the iSS life gets extended?

Espically since LEO is now cluttered with garbage, some from
intentially destroyed satellite killers.....