S
seth_381
Guest
Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.
seth_381":298hu8a1 said:Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.
seth_381":3aykchl2 said:Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.
EarthlingX":36wms5nm said:There are experiments about food growth, and many other biological fields going on :
NASA : Station Science
ESA : Columbus
JAXA : Space Environment Utilization and Space Experiment
Roscosmos : FUNDAMENTAL SPACE STUDIES
S.P. Korolev RSC Energia : Science Research on ISS Russian Segment
'Growing food' and 'for onboard consumption' are not the same thing. Now they are mostly concerned with the 'growing' part, as you can see, and for 'consumption' they use ferries. They are 'growing food', just not 'for onboard consumption'.bushuser":2mt62hio said:EarthlingX":2mt62hio said:There are experiments about food growth, and many other biological fields going on :
NASA : Station Science
ESA : Columbus
JAXA : Space Environment Utilization and Space Experiment
Roscosmos : FUNDAMENTAL SPACE STUDIES
S.P. Korolev RSC Energia : Science Research on ISS Russian Segment
Well, they are certainly doing some biology, though none of these links relate specifically to growing food for onboard consumption...not even algae or fungi.
rockett":1wmv5214 said:seth_381":1wmv5214 said:Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.
They probably can, updating and uprating equipment.
The real issue is, no one wants to junk a $100B+ investment as quick as NASA was planning in 2015.
http://www.spaceprojects.com/iss/
Not to mention a mass of about 1,040,000+ pounds, hauled up at great expense.
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/index.htm
I can't say I blame them for wanting to maximize that investment.
Also, we have not yet begun to make use of it's full capability, such as a base for constructing lunar and interplanetary spacecraft...
seth_381":3jdaizxi said:Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.
halman":nx0hbfuy said:seth_381":nx0hbfuy said:Isn't that just a little unrealistic ? Can something like ISS survive that long with out becoming like Mir ? I want feed back because it seems a little to out of this world.
There are a couple of World War II B-17's flying around today, and several P-51, hundreds of Stearman biplanes, and lord only knows how many antique cars are out there. If you take care of something, and fix stuff as soon as it breaks, if not before, (preventative maintenance,) then things can last a very long time. It is certainly possible to keep the International Space Station active and on-orbit until 2028, and even well beyond that, as long as it is re-boosted on a regular basis. Unfortunately, we put it in a very low orbit, so that the space shuttle could reach it at the orbital inclination it is on.
Because the space shuttle typically relied on the speed acquired by launching to the East, it sacrifices some altitude capability when launching to the the North/Northeast, or whatever the inclination is from Canaveral. Strangely enough, the Russians have never depended upon this small natural bonus, instead building their rockets powerful enough to reach high inclination orbits at higher altitudes, if I remember correctly.
Be that as it may, I would like to see the ISS boosted to a higher altitude, after a few Orbital Transfer Vehicles have been launched, as well as a fully pressurized hanger for them, and a few months worth of kerosene and liquid oxygen. You don't have to worry about boil-off loses with those propellants, I believe, so the tanks could sit in orbit for a while before they are used. The OTV's would meet payloads coming up from Earth, which would just make it into space, and collect the goods for hauling up to higher orbit. OTV's could also be used for placing satellites, even in the Clarke, or geosynchronus orbit, and collect ones that have run out of fuel, or that need repair.
Eventually, we will service such satellites, using some kind of vessel which can maneuver between orbits easily, while moving large amounts of mass. Thus, the components of a deep-space research vessel could be launched to a Low Earth Orbit, say, 160 miles, and then collected by the OTV's and taken to a 450 mile orbit, for instance, for assembly. (In this way, we can lift larger payloads with our existing rockets, or really big payloads with a heavy-lift launch-vehicle, because, the higher the final orbit, the smaller the payload a rocket can carry.) Work such as that will probably not be carried out at pure research stations, because of disruptions caused by operating rockets, radio transmitters, and electric razors. (Will there be cell phones in space?)
If we are to have a real future, we must learn how to maintain structures in space. Protective coatings, magnetic radiation shields, interchangeable parts, redundancy, these are all aspects of the longevity problem. If we build our space stations like we build our cars, than they won't last long. In spite of all the hoopla about going to Mars or to the Moon, space is where a lot of stuff is going to happen, no matter what. We will have to maintain a substantial presence in some orbit(s), which will mean maintaining structures there, perhaps for decades.
vulture4":1mp56tf5 said:It's the very idea of a new "space spectacular", regardless of its destination, that should be consigned to the waste bin of "been there, done that".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... rbit_plansAccording to a 2009 report, RKK Energia is considering methods to remove from the station some modules of the Russian Orbital Segment when the end of mission is reached and use them as a basis for a new station, known as the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex. The modules under consideration for removal from the current ISS include the Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM), currently scheduled to be launched at the end of 2011, with other Russian modules which are currently planned to be attached to the MLM until 2015, although still currently unfunded. Neither the MLM nor any additional modules attached to it would have reached the end of their useful lives in 2016 or 2020. The report presents a statement from an unnamed Russian engineer who believes that, based on the experience from Mir, a thirty-year life should be possible, except for micrometeorite damage, because the Russian modules have been built with on-orbit refurbishment in mind.[129]
kk434":3jb5it41 said:I think the ISS will in the distant future be called "The Great Space Station". The ISS will be the largest station for decades and when it is deorbited(hopefully not too soon) the existing stations will be small one like the proposed Chinese one or Biggalow.
ZiraldoAerospace":27prz120 said:In my opinion, we need to add a propellant depot to the station so that flights can go from Earth to the station, refuel, then launch to the Moon, asteroids, whatever. And while they are refueling, they can get a little rest on the station or something, kind of a rest stop in space.