Return Of TransHab module

like the Title Does Exploration initiative enable A Trans habitation
module for the ISS?

IT has always made sense To use inflatable modules in space Especially
on longer duration missions, They offer far more space than any CAN-type
habitation module.

Does the CEV program warrant the Addition of a inflatable habitation
module to the ISS?

I Feel it would be better to fully test the Concept of inflatable
modules in space , before any long duration mission. along with testing
the life support systems. At a low risk 0g environment like the ISS.

It wouldn't be launched on the shuttle but on an EELV and be smaller in
scale than the proposed Trans hab For the shuttle.

It Would be smaller capable of launching for a Delta 4

the original dimensions Were for a core 40 feet long x 27 feet in
diameter inflated, about 13 feet deflated. Mass of 35,000-40,000lbs.

You could Design one To fit in the 5 meter Fairing of a EELV and the
Mass of 40k lbs, is doable on a EELV. Issue of how to maneuver the
Module in orbit would have to be worked out. likely a CRV Tug,
mimicking the proposed CEV.

http://www.reston.com/nasa/congress/....transhab.html

this Site Explains why the original Transhab was canceled and how Today
its Expense may be justified.

Cheers

marvin wrote in message news:7a0cf$4019fa07$412b953f$29697@allthenewsgrou ps.com...
like the Title Does Exploration initiative enable A Trans habitation
module for the ISS?

IT has always made sense To use inflatable modules in space Especially
on longer duration missions, They offer far more space than any CAN-type
habitation module.

Does the CEV program warrant the Addition of a inflatable habitation
module to the ISS?

I Feel it would be better to fully test the Concept of inflatable
modules in space , before any long duration mission. along with testing
the life support systems. At a low risk 0g environment like the ISS.

It wouldn't be launched on the shuttle but on an EELV and be smaller in
scale than the proposed Trans hab For the shuttle.

It Would be smaller capable of launching for a Delta 4

the original dimensions Were for a core 40 feet long x 27 feet in
diameter inflated, about 13 feet deflated. Mass of 35,000-40,000lbs.

You could Design one To fit in the 5 meter Fairing of a EELV and the
Mass of 40k lbs, is doable on a EELV. Issue of how to maneuver the
Module in orbit would have to be worked out. likely a CRV Tug,
mimicking the proposed CEV.

http://www.reston.com/nasa/congress/....transhab.html

this Site Explains why the original Transhab was canceled and how Today
its Expense may be justified.

Cheers

I like the idea!
This would kill three birds with one stone.
First the testing you propose.
Second: This could more than provide the ISS Contingency Shuttle Crew
Support (CSCS), required for RTF.
Thrid: Expansion of the crew to 6 that the International partners have
been wanting back in the ISS program.

(Al Jackson) wrote in message . com...
marvin wrote in message news:7a0cf$4019fa07

You could Design one To fit in the 5 meter Fairing of a EELV and the
Mass of 40k lbs, is doable on a EELV. Issue of how to maneuver the
Module in orbit would have to be worked out. likely a CRV Tug,
mimicking the proposed CEV.

Cheers

I like the idea!
This would kill three birds with one stone.
First the testing you propose.
Second: This could more than provide the ISS Contingency Shuttle Crew
Support (CSCS), required for RTF.
Thrid: Expansion of the crew to 6 that the International partners have
been wanting back in the ISS program.

Habitable volume is not holding down size of ISS crew, it's supply
delivery and crew escape. That's why ISS is a crew of 2 right now
instead of 3. Only Soyuz and Progress can resupply, and their current
launch rate + payload is insufficient to support a crew of 3.

After shuttle returns to flight, the station should be able to support
a crew of 3, but only 3 until another crew escape method becomes
available that can return all astronauts onboard to earth in the event
of a problem.

Even after this, odds are that International partners will probably
follow Bush's lead and use ISS mainly for human microgravity
studies--which means you'll probably never need more than 3 people on
board.

Tom Merkle

(Tom Merkle) writes:

Even after this, odds are that International partners will probably
follow Bush's lead and use ISS mainly for human microgravity
studies--which means you'll probably never need more than 3 people on
board.

A poster from years ago named Ken Hayashida, MD, would disagree with
this and would insist that ISS needs to have as many people as
possible on board in order to increase the sample size to something
that's actually statistically meaningful.

I wonder where Ken is today? Could this be him? From his bio, it
sure sounds like it.

http://www.careways.com/khbiofaq.htm

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

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
(Al Jackson) wrote in message . com...
marvin wrote in message news:7a0cf$4019fa07

You could Design one To fit in the 5 meter Fairing of a EELV and the
Mass of 40k lbs, is doable on a EELV. Issue of how to maneuver the
Module in orbit would have to be worked out. likely a CRV Tug,
mimicking the proposed CEV.

Cheers

I like the idea!
This would kill three birds with one stone.
First the testing you propose.
Second: This could more than provide the ISS Contingency Shuttle Crew
Support (CSCS), required for RTF.
Thrid: Expansion of the crew to 6 that the International partners have
been wanting back in the ISS program.

Habitable volume is not holding down size of ISS crew, it's supply
delivery and crew escape. That's why ISS is a crew of 2 right now
instead of 3. Only Soyuz and Progress can resupply, and their current
launch rate + payload is insufficient to support a crew of 3.

After shuttle returns to flight, the station should be able to support
a crew of 3, but only 3 until another crew escape method becomes
available that can return all astronauts onboard to earth in the event
of a problem.

Even after this, odds are that International partners will probably
follow Bush's lead and use ISS mainly for human microgravity
studies--which means you'll probably never need more than 3 people on
board.

Tom Merkle

Quite true.
Well everything is hazy right now. At one time it seemed that ESA ,
with the ATV and buying its own Soyuz might be able to bring the crew
size up.
But with cost overruns on the ATV that's probably out.
Ah well, nothing is really clear.

Al Jackson wrote:

marvin wrote in message news:7a0cf$4019fa07$412b953f$29697@allthenewsgrou ps.com...
like the Title Does Exploration initiative enable A Trans habitation
module for the ISS?

IT has always made sense To use inflatable modules in space Especially
on longer duration missions, They offer far more space than any CAN-type
habitation module.

Does the CEV program warrant the Addition of a inflatable habitation
module to the ISS?

I Feel it would be better to fully test the Concept of inflatable
modules in space , before any long duration mission. along with testing
the life support systems. At a low risk 0g environment like the ISS.

It wouldn't be launched on the shuttle but on an EELV and be smaller in
scale than the proposed Trans hab For the shuttle.

It Would be smaller capable of launching for a Delta 4

the original dimensions Were for a core 40 feet long x 27 feet in
diameter inflated, about 13 feet deflated. Mass of 35,000-40,000lbs.

You could Design one To fit in the 5 meter Fairing of a EELV and the
Mass of 40k lbs, is doable on a EELV. Issue of how to maneuver the
Module in orbit would have to be worked out. likely a CRV Tug,
mimicking the proposed CEV.

http://www.reston.com/nasa/congress/....transhab.html

this Site Explains why the original Transhab was canceled and how Today
its Expense may be justified.

How about hooking the Transhab onto HST so the 'h' really could stand in
for 'Hotel' if you really needed it to, and then Shuttle could fly there
as often as everyone wants.