Cargo Ship vs ISS expansion

[tdmikey]

<p>Is it possible to send up a "cargo ship" that is also an ISS expansion instead of having to ferry up an extension of the ISS?&nbsp; </p><p>Would only seem reasonable to do it this way.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Is&nbsp; the cargo ship re-useable for another launch or does it just come back as broken up space junk?</p><p>If its re-useable then I can see why we do it this way but if not then why dont we just add-on to the ISS?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know.  You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window."  "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it possible to send up a "cargo ship" that is also an ISS expansion instead of having to ferry up an extension of the ISS?&nbsp; Would only seem reasonable to do it this way.&nbsp;&nbsp;Is&nbsp; the cargo ship re-useable for another launch or does it just come back as broken up space junk?If its re-useable then I can see why we do it this way but if not then why dont we just add-on to the ISS? <br /> Posted by tdmikey</DIV></p><p>Not really soon all the docking ports would be used up.</p><p>&nbsp;This craft is not reusable.</p><p>It is used as a garbage hauler once it is done</p><p>&nbsp;The place where the ATV is going to dock is just for cargo ships and another function of the cargo ships is to reboost the ISS and resupply propellant to the ISS. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tdmikey]

<p>Couldn't they just make a docking port at the back of craft so more pieces could hook up to the back of it.&nbsp; Many pieces sent up is already built to withstand the obstacles of space and then gets thrown away.&nbsp; It would only make more sense to me if it were to be used for long term.&nbsp; For the garbage on the ISS, couldn't we make a section just for trajectory pods towards earth that would be a little cheaper?&nbsp; I know this may be a difficult thing to create but wouldn't expansion on the ISS be something we are looking at?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I don't know the future of the ISS but aren't we looking at colonizing space?&nbsp; This would be the perfect opportunity to do so.&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry bout all the questions and thanks,</p><p>Mike&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know.  You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window."  "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Couldn't they just make a docking port at the back of craft so more pieces could hook up to the back of it.&nbsp; Many pieces sent up is already built to withstand the obstacles of space and then gets thrown away.&nbsp; It would only make more sense to me if it were to be used for long term.&nbsp; For the garbage on the ISS, couldn't we make a section just for trajectory pods towards earth that would be a little cheaper?&nbsp; I know this may be a difficult thing to create but wouldn't expansion on the ISS be something we are looking at?&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't know the future of the ISS but aren't we looking at colonizing space?&nbsp; This would be the perfect opportunity to do so.&nbsp;Sorry bout all the questions and thanks,Mike&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tdmikey</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; more room isn't really needed</p><p>2.&nbsp; There are plenty of attach ports on the front that will be unused&nbsp;</p><p>3. The garbage has to be put in a spacecraft to deorbit it safely. &nbsp;&nbsp; That is what the resupply ship are for supplies go up and garbage&nbsp; going down.&nbsp; Throwing it down at earth doesn't&nbsp; work that way. &nbsp; </p><p>4.&nbsp; Also more room is more $$$$$$$$&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[richalex]

<p>I am not an expert, but I would say that the cargo ships contain a lot of propulsion and navigational equipment and are special-designed for carrying cargo into orbit, not so much for serving special use as ISS units. For example, this next shuttle mission is hauling up a Japanese lab, which will have research stations (lab racks) built in and such. If it had been built into a cargo ship, much space would have been used for the propulsion/navigation controls and propellants. </p><p>The cargo vehicles are not re-usable. They burn up in the atmosphere after they leave ISS.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

 

[Zipi]

<p>Most of the Russian modules are built like tdmikey described. They are induvidial space ships docked with each other. The MIR station was built like that:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir</p><p>The problem is the overhead of navigational systems, propulsion systems etc... This overhead will add unneeded mass to the station. Each module will add more mass and station reboosts will need more propellant after each addition. Which will mean you need to fly a cargo ship more often. You need also to worry about proper air flow to each module, cooling/heating issues etc... There is also a need to get rid of the junk produced by humans, equipment and experiments.</p><p>Current cargo vehicles have pretty small hatches compared to UBM hatches which USA, Europe and Japan modules are using. For example you cannot move international standard payload racks through Progress/Soyuz/ATV/Shuttle docking ports.</p><p>After all the idea is good and it is usable. But it only works for few modules and at least the way I'm thinking it is a bad idea to built the whole station at this way. Anyways this model is currently in use and the next such module will be the MLM:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipurpose_Laboratory_Module</p><p>More about the ISS modules:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Pressurized_modules</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>So in colonizing space, <br /><br />should we send individual modules to Mars first to rendezvous and assemble the large craft on mars orbit or should we assemble a big craft on earth orbit and send it to mars as one craft and station?</p><p>Now we have built one large craft on Earth orbit but to send the ISS away to the Moon or Mars is not possible. Accelerating such large mass is simply not doable?</p>

 

[tdmikey]

<p>Thanks for all the info.</p><p>I was just thinking how would be the best way to colonize space.&nbsp; What is going to happen when all the ISS ports are used up?&nbsp; I know after 2010 there should be no more construction on the ISS but what if?&nbsp; Whats going to happen when the ISS reaches its "end of life contract"?&nbsp; Will we throw away billions of dollars?&nbsp; Will we try to then plant a miniforest for oxygen sufficiency.&nbsp; Can we add a trash bay that shoots unwanted material towards the sun or earth or a mass body?&nbsp; Can we not depend on earth for supplies?</p><p>Also wasnt saying that every cargo ship needed to be an expansion.&nbsp; But wouldnt it be wiser to send up a "lab" on a rocket instead of 7 human individuals with the lab.&nbsp; It could hook up like a cargo ship on its own. have a docking port on the back of it for other cargo ships until another expansion is needed.</p><p>I dont know, just thinking.</p><p>Mike</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know.  You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window."  "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

 

[qso1]

<p>ISS is definetily not the way to colonize space on a large scale. Thats a process that'll take decades of spaceflight activity probably starting with a mix of industrialization and tourism. Initially, it would be possible to send up several unmanned vehicles based on shuttle "C" or a new carrier atop an inline HLLV. Private industry financed to cut down the cost of getting the vehicles into orbit. Private industry access to low orbit via Rutan Spaceship type vehicles or an equivalent. The on orbit Bigelow hotels a good place to start tourism on a larger scale.</p><p>&nbsp;Years ago I developed a concept for graphic novels I have since finished. A shuttle "C" type carrier that can be launced as a cargo vehicle that becomes a self deploying spacecraft all its own once on orbit. The cargo being whatever the spacecrafts purpose dictates. Single space station element for example would be the cargo and become the spacecraft so to speak in what I called "The Skylab Assembly Method". In one application, several elements are launched and later docked to become a large station called "Skyhab".</p><p>The problem in colonizing space over time is not a technical one as much as it is a logistical and financial one IMO.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/2/8256008b-811a-4c00-b2ae-f984edb66331.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;Shown here is a second generation heavy lift outsized cargo carrier portrayed as capable of llifting around 250-300 tons to low orbit.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">Is it possible to send up a "cargo ship" that is also an ISS expansion instead of having to ferry up an extension of the ISS?</font></p><p>This sounds like one and the same when you think about it. An extension of the ISS could and would have to be some kind of payload to be cost effective and functional. The main difference being a cargo extension would be cost effective over a one time extension.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>