I am thinking of expanding ISS into spacelab-hotel complex

[hk8900]

The ISS will be completed in 2010, however, I am thinking of possibly merging of ISS and CSS (Commercial Space Complex). The Bigelow aerospace succeed in their Genesis-1 and I expect in the early next decade, BA330 will be commercially avaliable. Under current plan, the US is not going to utilize the ISS after mid2010 due to the VSE. So, why don't we expand the current ISS config into a multipurpose space complex?<br /><br />the advantage of merging the planned CSS with ISS:<br />1. make effective use of the ISS to generate revenue<br />2. keep the ISS alive for commercial use<br />3. building the largest space complex weighting more than 700mT which enable research on many people living in space<br /><br />My proposed way of expanding the ISS to ISS-CSS complex<br />1. Node 4 will be attached to the Zvezda module<br />2. 4 service modules with advanced life support systems will be attached to the 4 side ports of Node 4. This will enable 30+ people to stay in the complex(This is especially important for a hotel)<br />3. a rotatable pressurized module is attached to the end of Node 4<br />4. a long, narrow pressurized tunnel is attached to 1 sideport of the rotable pressurized module.<br />5. Another end of the pressurized tunnel attached to rotation control module, a small rigid module which has several small jets<br />6. a number of BA330s will form a close ring with the rotation control module<br />7. to meet the increasing the demand for more power, 2 additional trusses with 4 solar wings will be attached to the existing truss system<br /><br />drawings will be uploaded later<br /><br />please give some comments, thx.

 

[qso1]

I'm awaiting the drawing upload before I comment. <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>

 

[spacy600]

I like the idea of a lot of smaller stations,<br />rather than one big one.<br />1 safer<br />2 no lines (to get into the life boat)<br />3 less stink

 

[hk8900]

This is my ISS-CSS conceptual drawing<br />

 

[larper]

1. Safer.<br /><br />I wouldn't think so. The larger the volume of the station, the more resilient it is to MMOD impacts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

The BA 330 module will not rotate, due to the water layer in the walls. Also, you have 12 modules that can support 6 people each, you will need much more power than what you have shown here. I suggest a Nuclear Reactor. It takes up a lot less space, & weighs less than the comparable number solar panels that could provide the same amount of power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[spacy600]

was'nt refering to impacts, re safer.<br />the more complex the more things go wrong.<br /><br />Just looked at that drawing,<br />Looks like Rube Goldberg did it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[qso1]

Not bad. This would possibly help recoup some of the huge cost of ISS and extend the life of ISS as well. With a growing private industry/enterprise involvement in space activity, maybe a combination of stations could be developed. A big one such as you have proposed, and a collection of smaller stations along the lines proposed by spacy600. <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]

ISS by itself is a Rube Goldberg like contraption...but it does work. I tend to think to be truly successful in low orbit, we may need a mix of large stations, and smaller single purpose stations. Some of which may only be man tended.<br /><br />I showed a smaller type station in a book I did awhile back. Its task was on orbit propellant resupply. The station was lofted to orbit as a shuttle "C" like payload element. Like Skylab however, the station flew itself to orbit so to speak. A self deploying shuttle "C" type vehicle utilizing a method I called the Skylab Assembly Method or jokingly...SKAM.<br /><br />Of course, my idea is only for a book, not actual engineering or building, but the concept should work in practice if it were to be developed. I actually have a thread on it way back. <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>

 

[owenander]

It'd be very efficient to use the ISS as some sort of space hub, but the problem is it is international and the government runs it meaning lots of loopholes and a big waste of time to get anything done. Bigelow will have a much larger station soon enough.

 

[hk8900]

let's discuss about the technical and economical fesibility on this ISS-CSS complex<br />Is it possible to rotate Bigelow's BA330s<br />I think the walls should be strong enough to provide the centripetal force in rotation

 

[qso1]

OwenAnder:<br />It'd be very efficient to use the ISS as some sort of space hub,<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats true and what you say is the most likely outcome. That is the government run loopholes etc. Bigelow or hopefully someone in private industry/enterprise will put into orbit, whatever ultimately is economically profitable. <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]

HK8900:<br />Is it possible to rotate Bigelow's BA330s...<br /><br />Me:<br />I'd say yes its possible. One just has to build the structure that will allow for mounting the modules in the way similar to that shown by the drawing. The rotational speed will be slow so as not to disturb human vestibular systems and still provide at least 65% gravity.<br />And that should be well within the current Bigelow module load capability.<br /><br />If not, by the time an artificial gravity station with Bigelow modules might be planned...the modules that can handle rotational structural loading can be developed and put into operation. <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>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Has anybody here seen the Build Your Own Habitat section on the Bigelow website?<br /> Here's a good one<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[malfunkshun]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am thinking of possibly merging of ISS and CSS (Commercial Space Complex). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />i assume you are a multibillionaire otherwise i am completely at a loss as to how you plan on doing this

 

[hk8900]

i assume you are a multibillionaire otherwise i am completely at a loss as to how you plan on doing this<br /><br /><br />I of course CANNOT do this, but someone CAN or MAY do this<br />this is not important, I just want to share some of my thinking and discuss it on the forum with everyone <br />Don't care about the wordings, although they are confusing