finshing the iss

[ehs40]

http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html<br /><br />this is a link to the iss assembly flights. there are 23 launches for a u.s. orbiter now if you look closely there are 6 crew rotation and mplm flights now because nasa wants to only launch 18 more times (give or take a few) nasa could let russia do the crew rotations and we could launch the mplm's on a heavy lift rocket im not sure which one would do the job but by doing this that makes only 17 more needed flights to the iss for assembly i dont know if this is nasa's plan or what but i think this could work the only problem i see with it is the mplm's are not designed for long term use at the station. <br /><br />so what dose every one else think about this idea??

 

[mattblack]

MPLM can't fly to the station by themselves, they have no propulsion: They need either a Shuttle or a "Tug" vehicle to do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

There is already an MPLM with those capabilities:the ATV Automated Transfer Vehicle. The first unit, Jules Verne is flying in 06. It's cargo carrier isn't quite as large as the MPLMs, but is also made by Alenia spazio. The system, if it works, will be a middle ground between Progress and Shuttle/MPLM. My only concern would be the use of Russian docking hardware, not reliability issues but the fact that you can't move racks through the hatch. It does open the possibility of integrating racks into the ATV, performing whatever experiments and deorbiting the craft. No return capability in the first generation. ESA is a strong 3rd player in the ISS project, with Japan they have been far more stable in support and goals than either US or Russia. Anyhow, ATV is a tug/MPLM that will be available soon. <br /><br />josh<br /><br />http://www.aleniaspazio.it/space_infrastructures.aspx <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

The ISS won't be finished in the sense of getting the originally planned Node 3, U.S. habitation module, U.S. propulsion module, etc. But I'm still hoping that they complete the trusses and solar arrays, and install Node 2, the European Columbus module, and the two Japanese lab modules.

 

[j05h]

>Frankly, the notion of finishing the ISS "on time," is pretty much out the window. I would think that the ISS first of all should never be finished.<br /><br />The station as originally proposed was going to be done in 1992, so you are of course correct. The idea of an organic, growing and changing station is attractive. <br /><br /> />Science is not going to stop when the ISS is " finished." Now, science on the ISS will be curtailed if the world decides that it is too expensive to service or properly supply.<br /><br />I don't understand. I was pointing out that there is an alternative "MPLM" coming online that incorporates a tug: the ATV. This (along with the HII if it ever flies) allow for 3rd party access to station so that those parties (ESA & JAXA) can provide supplies to station and their own modules once attached. This is good for furthering research on ISS. <br /><br />I would assume, judging by the current trend, that almost no research will be conducted on ISS until crew is expanded after/if Core Complete is achieved. <br /><br />This should be in the other thread, but curtailing research on ISS is exactly what NASA is doing. The budgets have been getting tighter yearly for actual research, and apparently hit the breaking point. People (Oberg, Simberg) have been warning about this for a decade. The solution, I think, might be RadarRedux's proposal: fund station science through the National Science Foundation. <br /><br />I want the station, and soon stations, to be succesful via whatever funding/support mechanisms are required. Do you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mattblack]

The main problem with ISS science, other than funding, is that the Shuttle is the ONLY vehicle that can carry up AND back the large experiment racks. You can't do it in a Soyuz or the coming CEV. While it may be possible to further miniaturize many future scientific experiment racks, much of the current Science Racks are established designs that cannot be re-done on the cheap, if at all.<br /><br />Some of this science has been waiting a decade to be done so you can imagine the frustration of the scientists involved. And even if the racks were transported up, if the ISS crew was restricted to 3, just how much science do you think would get done? Six crew are needed, no question, as ISS has never yet had the chance to strut her stuff science-wise.<br /><br />What would the chances be of keeping 2 or even 1 Orbiter still running as a Science Rack+Cargo carrier with NO crew until more compact Science Racks are developed over, say, a 3 year period?<br /><br />Unlikely, is the answer. But just as a concept for the sake of discussion, say Endeavour alone was converted into an unmanned Shuttle with an automated Rendezvous & Docking system. Then, all crew stations and facilities (even the toilet!) were deleted and only basic life-support capabilities were retained so station Astronauts could work inside Endeavour to unload her.<br /><br />The vehicle would have a standard MPLM cargo module berthed in the payload bay and the Mid-deck area would also be crammed with cargo. This whole concept could represent a significant Up/Down logistics capability and would only have to fly 2 or 3 times a year to shift decent tonnage. Also, I'd suggest only flying this configuration until one or both Orbiters needed their Major Downtime Maintenance Period overhauls, then finally retire the system for good in say, 2014.<br /><br />Something to ponder, however unlikely it is to happen... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Matt - I would argue that a very large automated capsule is far simpler/cheaper to develop than converting the Shuttle Orbiter to unmanned ops. The payload racks are a standard size and won't be made smaller, the solution if down-mass is needed is to add that capability to an automated system. ISPRs won't fit through the small Russian hatches but are designed to fit through US CBM hatches. The ATV uses the russian docking mechanism, but the Japanese HII will use CBMs - hence there is already a system being developed that partly meets the needs for exchanging racks. Also, I wouldn't discount t/space being able to exchange and return racks for ISS. Shuttle (and assembly flights) are extremely labor-intense, one of the main problems holding back automated Shuttle flights. Getting the Orbiters into museums should be an essential part of finishing station. Prolonging their use jeopardizes both Station and the VSE.<br /><br />1207- As far as cost-per-astronaut, if NASA offers any set price, I think there will be takers. $20, $40, $50 million/astronaut, some provider will figure out how to make it happen. Cost-plus has got to go in operations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>