ISS assembly sequence

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nec208

Guest
Well 12 more times to go up in space.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_assembly_sequence<br /><br />-----------------<br />The projected completion date is 2010, with the station remaining in operation until around 2016. As of 2007, the ISS is already larger than any previous space station.<br />----------------------------<br /><br />Okay is this a joke we are spending all that time and money to build the ISS and it is only going to be there for 6 years after it is build? <br /><br />Where are the jails or hospitals for NASA this is insane all that time and money for only 6 years??<br /><br />What the hell is the ISS a test station to build it than destroy it?<br /><br />You know after the ISS there will be no new ISS because the US is going to the moon in 2020 witch is 10 years after building the ISS.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
The official end of the ISS has been set for 2016 before all the delays occured and before Columbia. With a full crew of 6 starting in April 2009 this would mean about 7 1/2 years of full capabilities instead of the envisioned 10 years at the start of the program.<br /><br />It is currently discussed to extent the program further to 2020, however NASA has to get the budget for this extension (more than 10 billion USD in today's dollars to keep ISS running from 2017-2020 just for NASA), the international partners need to be willing to commit more money for the extension and everybody needs to be comfortable to operate the ISS years beyond the nominal lifetime of certain modules, which of course is a risk (for instance Destiny, Zarya and Zvedza would be years beyond their lifetimes in 2020).
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
maybe nasa will ask for donations....with as many kids that are already into areospace, and if theres any inspiration from barb morgan going up, and the efforts of some of us (like me) to point out iridium flares, ISS and shuttle fly-overs, and the occasional newly born meteor shower watcher, etc....i think with a little effort, nasa, jaxa, esa, etc might be able to have some sort of fundraiser, or donation request just might bring in a little extra funding. <br /><br />besides that...part of the pressure would be relieved if rich people in america were taxed almost, or just as much (percentage wise) as the lower-middle income people were. [/bitterness]<br /><br />there'd definitely be more funds available if that happened, and if we stopped dumping so much money into this war. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Not giving NASA money isn't going to free up money for more jails and hospitals.
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
Building prisons and hospitals? Perish the thought. That money would be reserved for "bridges to nowhere" and other useless Congressional earmarks. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
The internet is a source of good, bad and indifferent information about pretty much anything.<br /><br />I would encourage you to avoid getting quite so worked up about things you read. I would also encourage you to ask something more neutral, like<br /><br />"I ran across this schedule and I would like to ask<br />(1) Does it look like the data is up to date and reasonable?<br /><br />(2) If it is, what are the factors and rationale behind it"<br /><br />Using terms like "jails and hospitals" when discussing such things is not really reasonable.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
N

nec208

Guest
Lat me put it in small terms you can understand well it takes me long time to build a house it cost me $400,000 and in 6 years you destroy it.<br /><br />Not a problem if you are rich but middle or lower class it would be insane.<br /><br />It cost NASA loads of money to build the ISS witch it self takes long time and cannot be built in 3 years and every time you go up in space there is possibility you may not come back.<br /> <br />What I'm saying it is waste 5 years or 10 years or even 15 years for ISS that cost so much money and takes so long to build.<br /><br />If you are going to spend that money and that time building it make at the very least it is going to be there no less than 20 years.<br /><br />If it was a test station than that is other thing.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Actually, I think you missed my point, and the point that SG made.<br /><br />The dates that you read are false. They are untrue.<br /><br />You suggested that people should be sent to prisons or mental hospitals, based on data that you did not verify.<br /><br />You spoke to a moderator (with a Ph.D. in experimental physics) with terms like "Lat me put it in small terms" based on data that you did not verify, and had been told was incorrect before you spoke.<br /><br />The whole post you followed with was an attempt to justify why you were mad about data that you did not verify, and were told was incorrect.<br /><br />I completely understand how one would get upset over a stations lifetime seeming to be so short. It just so happens that the data in this case is not correct. <br /><br />That is why I suggested that it is a good idea to *verify* before getting angry. <br /><br />Wayne<br /><br />p.s. If you want to get upset, I know of programs that were approved for funding, and then canceled a couple of weeks later.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
A case in point about getting mad before verifying.<br /><br />Several years ago, someone posted a link to a story about something a leader of another country was alleged to have said 40+ years ago - it was quite inflamatory.<br /><br />What followed was a discussion of how awful the person was. People posted quite angry statements, far worse that you did in this thread. What no one bothered to do was to verify if the story was true. It wasn't.<br /><br />Ironically, the story got traction, and came to people's attention because a young reporter for a college newspaper published it. Her "fact finding" process to verify the story was that it appeared all over the web, so it must be true.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> If it was a test station than that is other thing.</i> <br /><br />ISS is a "test station". All space stations that have actually flown have been research or military (Salyut) stations. ISS is a massive project, but a large part of the "research" is the act of building it. Barring accident or disaster, the ISS should function into the 2020s in the planned configuration, possibly much longer. <br /><br />All assembly sequences are subject to change - stuff happens. This autumn and winter, however, look forward to the next Node and Japanese Kibo module to fly. <br /><br />The real issue is what lessons from ISS will be applied to future stations?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"What is the expected service life of the main truss solar array? Could Unity and the solar array be salvaged via seperation from the rest of the ISS when those modules become too old and dangerous? Perhaps to be used again for a more modern application?"<br /><br />Unity is the oldest of the modules so it wouldn't be available. The truss is connected to Destiny not Unity. It is not an independent item, many of the control and power conversion systems are in the modules. Also the station attitude control system is in the Z-1 truss on Unity. The station is an all or nothing. The parts can't survive alone
 
A

arkady

Guest
Well, I'd argue that should the entire station crash into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow the project wouldn't suddenly become worthless or a waste. The real treasure here is the sheer amount of know-how and hands-on experience associated with spacefight and orbital assembly accumulated over the years. It's like claiming the Wright brothers would have lived in vain if we decided to burn the Wright Flyer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
N

nec208

Guest
Okay kids time for big spanking you wrong.<br />- your wrong<br />- your wrong<br />- your wrong<br />- your wrong<br /><br /><br />I will not believe some member, I will believe a f-uken PRESS release this is a PRESS a dam PRESS release I posted to day get it.<br /><br />You back up your dam claim, I quoted 2 one a press release today to &%$#@!er your claim and one from Wikipedia ..And this is NEW PRESS release today.<br /><br />http://www.thestar.com/News/article/244743 <br /><br />May be if you read the threads and post you understand it was poted today.<br /><br />Aug 09, 2007 12:55 PM <br />Canadian Press <br /><br />http://www.thestar.com/News/article/244743 <br /><br />For now, NASA officials are scrambling to have the space station completed and operational by 2010 while working on a new reusable vehicle, the Orion capsule. <br /><br />The space station program is scheduled to end by 2016, but Marcotte said it's entirely possible that could be extended<br /><br /> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24850<br /><br />Statement of Cristina T. Chaplain, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management <br /><br />GAO-07-1121T <br /><br />Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: <br /><br />NASA plans to finish assembling the ISS in 2010 and operate the station until 2016. The station is scheduled to support 6-person crew capability as early as 2009. The shuttle was to be the primary means for ISS re-supply and crew rotation. NASA's international partners were planning to augment the shuttle's capabilities with their cargo and crew spacecraft. Following the Columbia disaster in 2003, the President set a new "vision" for NASA that called for the shuttle's retirement in 2010 upon completing <br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_chron</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nec208

Guest
No he is not and that member is running around saying I'm wrong and I posted press release today to say he is wrong but he did not see the press release or claiming the press release is wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nec208

Guest
ISS is a "test station". All space stations that have actually flown have been research or military (Salyut) stations. ISS is a massive project, but a large part of the "research" is the act of building it. Barring accident or disaster, the ISS should function into the 2020s in the planned configuration, possibly much longer. <br /><br />=======================<br /><br />If it is a test station why is it doing research and the ISS was for research. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Let's see, what do you do in a test station?<br /><br />Research seems like a pretty logical answer to me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
N

nec208

Guest
Well, I'd argue that should the entire station crash into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow the project wouldn't suddenly become worthless or a waste. The real treasure here is the sheer amount of know-how and hands-on experience associated with spacefight and orbital assembly accumulated over the years. It's like claiming the Wright brothers would have lived in vain if we decided to burn the Wright Flyer. <br /><br />==========================<br />I'm not claiming any thing and I'm only posting what I have read from more than 3 web sites.Other members who are getting smart with me over dates and such.<br /><br />If the point of the ISS was test to prove they can build it and learn how to do it than NASA should say that.And same for the space shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

thermionic

Guest
I'm mad too, Bob! And I cry when spanked, so unless you want to see a grown man cry, just cut that out!<br /><br />But let me see here... The ISS has been staffed for some years now, with a continuous crew presence studying the effects of vodka in space or whatever they do up there... And it's not even 2010 yet!<br /><br />As to shutting it down in 2016, let me put in small terms you can understand (what a great phrase, by the way. I'm going to try that with my boss and maybe my wife. I'm sure they'll laugh and laugh!). The MERS took a lot of money and a long time to build, just like your house. And NASA planned to operate them for only 90 days. Crazy, I say! What happened after 90 days? They kept on running them since they were working so well, just like you would keep on living in your house that you worked so hard to build. If ol' ISS is a rockin' joint in 2016, you can bet somebody will pick up the tab. If it turns out to be a hunkajunk, we'll all get treated to a meteor shower!<br /><br />There are reasonable arguments against manned space activity. Ponder the details, refine your prose, and you'll get your point across more clearly.<br /><br />Right now I'm just stoked that the shuttle's up in heaven and we have a space program that's making headway doing something or other!<br /><br />
 
N

nec208

Guest
Yes I'm not saying that by 2016 if the ISS is doing very well some one in NASA may say thats have it go to 2020 or 2025.<br /><br />But like you say if they do not much up there or it does not turn out the way they want it they may just do away with it.<br /><br />It is up to NASA that will make the best out of the money or wast the money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
As to shutting it down in 2016, let me put in small terms you can understand (what a great phrase, by the way. I'm going to try that with my boss and maybe my wife. I'm sure they'll laugh and laugh!). The MERS took a lot of money and a long time to build, just like your house. And NASA planned to operate them for only 90 days. Crazy, I say! What happened after 90 days? They kept on running them since they were working so well, just like you would keep on living in your house that you worked so hard to build. If ol' ISS is a rockin' joint in 2016, you can bet somebody will pick up the tab. If it turns out to be a hunkajunk, we'll all get treated to a meteor shower! <br />--------------<br />The MERs had a nominal lifetime of 90 days - correct. You can however not compare this nominal lifetime with the expected, budgeted lifetime end of the ISS. The MERs were not expected to fail after 90 days and were designed to last a couple of years, the nominal lifetime of 90 days was set in order to call the mission a success in the event one of them fails rather soon in the mission + because in this 90 day timeframe a minimum amount of science could be done. <br /><br />The two main points that will determine whether the ISS program will be extended beyond 2016 are - as mentioned above:<br /><br />1. the willingness of NASA, ESA, JAXA, CSA and Roskosmos to fund its operations for a couple of years beyond the agreed end of the program. Due to high costs (currently 2 billion for NASA and about another 1 billion for the international partners) this is the largest contraint for its operations.<br /><br />2. Whether engineers conclude that it is save to operate the ISS past its nominal lifetime and whether the effects from old hardware (computer failure, decaying mirco-meteroite shield, power source etc.) are not as severe as for instance on Mir (Mir's modules do not differ much from ISS's modules and started to malfunction in many ways and pose safety problems after 10 years of operations
 
T

thermionic

Guest
You dare argue with me? Don't you know that once started, it can never end, even if we agree with each other?<br /><br />Just for that, I'm on nec208's side now... The key to it all is, given N bazillion dollars per year, how do we get as far as we can? I'm not entirely sure where nec208 is coming from, but I think s/he/it feels that it's a waste sending up all the infrastructure for people when machines can get the job done. Think of how many MERs, Cassinis, Hubbles, MSLs, JIMOs, Clementines, ..., we could have had for the price of the ISS.<br /><br />On the other other hand, we can't know for sure unless we try something. I'm actually of the position that both the shuttle and ISS programs are successes. They both worked, although not as well and more $$ than hoped. But we tried, and now we know...
 
Q

qso1

Guest
nec208:<br />If the point of the ISS was test to prove they can build it and learn how to do it than NASA should say that.And same for the space shuttle.<br /><br />Me:<br />For space shuttle, NASA said...they needed to find a less expensive way to get payloads to space than throwaway rockets. What some at NASA thought might happen actually did happen. The shuttle proved too complicated to be an economical transport. However...shuttle flights are still at a more economical price point than throaway Saturn-V rockets.<br /><br />As for ISS, the NASA position was not to prove they can build the thing. They did that with Skylab. They touted ISS as a world class research platform with capabilities for doing research ranging from microgravity effects on materials to the effects of long duration spaceflight on astronauts.<br /><br />ISS was not the best way to accomplish this but ISS grew out of space station proposals dating to the early 1980s. Station was rescoped in 1993 and better proposals were offered but politics being what it is, the Clinton Admin decided to leave the basic design alone but bring in the Russians. Station survived because of that decision. ISS became the result. One cannot just abandon multibillion dollar programs overnight, especially NASA with its inherant long range planning and design requirements. That would be more wasteful than just proceeding to phase out in a deliberate manner. As you mentioned, the probable real value from ISS is the experience we have had with it. Same goes for shuttle. Only two nations developed the capability to operate a reusable spaceplane. Only one nation has actually operated a reusable spaceplane and we have that experience should we one day realize all this cost saving has accomplished nothing towards what it was supposed to accomplish. <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>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
nec208:<br />You know after the ISS there will be no new ISS because the US is going to the moon in 2020 witch is 10 years after building the ISS.<br /><br />Me:<br />One cannot take these schedules as though they were set in stone. Consider this scenario:<br /><br />Democrats get elected President and control spending:<br /><br />*VSE is axed in 2009.<br /><br />*Upon VSE cancelation, NASA is forced to extend shuttle operations beyond 2010, and to maintain ISS beyond 2016.<br /><br />Or:<br /><br />Dems keep VSE but stretch it out to Orion IOC of 2020. Now NASA needs to extend shuttle to 2016 just to ensure the 4 year manned spaceflight hiatus is no longer than 4 years.<br /><br />Or:<br />Dems give NASA twice (Yeh, that'll happen) what they request budget wise and order development of low cost access capability.<br /><br />Point of all this, schedules are not set in stone. <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>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
thermionic:<br />On the other other hand, we can't know for sure unless we try something. I'm actually of the position that both the shuttle and ISS programs are successes. They both worked, although not as well and more $$ than hoped. But we tried, and now we know...<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree and that was what I was leaning towards when I mentioned the two nation shuttle thing and forgot my point. The Russians abandoned their shuttle before ever giving it a chance to prove itself so to speak. It might have been an improvement over our shuttle and its too bad that didn't happen. Had their shuttle been improved, it would lead to us building an improvement over theirs.<br /><br />thermionic:<br />Think of how many MERs, Cassinis, Hubbles, MSLs, JIMOs, Clementines, ..., we could have had for the price of the ISS. <br /><br />Me:<br />Only problem is, how many of each does one really need? If NASA could get a budget of $20B annually, we would probably have a much more progressive program than we do now both manned and unmanned. <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts