ISS Completion

[grooble]

It seems to me from my basic understanding of the ISS program, that there is no way it will be finished by 2010. I read somewhere on this forum today that the fastest turnaround for the shuttle was 3-4 months, but the average is 4-5.<br /><br />The shuttle program would need to max out until the end of 2010 just to get 22 missions flown right? 2 this year, 4 per year until end of '10.<br /><br />I think Griffin wanted to bring it down to 18 missions? <br /><br />It'd still need to max out for the next 5 years.<br />

 

[grooble]

That'd be awesome if the shuttle went out on a high note by completing the ISS.

 

[ehs40]

it would be col for the shuttle to launch, get their final mission done and retire into a nice aerospace musem

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">There are great changes at NASA today. Who knows what will happen.</font>/i><br /><br />Latest word/rumor is that the White House wants to limit shuttle flights to no more than 15. The reasons are the same often voiced here: the shuttle/ISS consume resources needed for the Vision.<br /><br />I think this could play into Griffin's hand. Griffin wants a SDHLV. Limiting the shuttle to 15 or fewer flights could free up resources for the SDHLV, and it could provide the initial missions for the SDHLV (flying the remaining components to the ISS). <br /><br /><br />White House Memo Calls For Slashing Remaining Space Shuttle Flights<br />Frank Sietzen, Jr. and Keith L. Cowing<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1049</i>

 

[le3119]

Maybe we'll continue it as a spacedock platform to stage lunar missions.

 

[ehs40]

using the iss as a space dock for future moon missions is most likey going to happen i think

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"Latest word/rumor is that the White House wants to limit shuttle flights to no more than 15. The reasons are the same often voiced here: the shuttle/ISS consume resources needed for the Vision."</font><br /><br />I hope that 15 flights is enough to get through installation of the European and Japanese labs, and maybe the cupola. I mean, if you're not going to install those lab modules, there's no sense in installing Node 2. And heck, there's not even any sense in adding the additional solar arrays if there's no need to power those modules.

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Well keep inmind that it will be 15 (or whatever the final number comes out as) - 1 for HST. Griffin has made it clear it will happen. When you add all the spares that will have to go up (Progress can't handle most of them) and supplies and the 8 flights for key modules - there is not much pad.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"... - 1 for HST. Griffin has made it clear it will happen. "</font><br /><br />Nope -- you are misremembering. Griffin said that he would re-open the case and look into re-instating a Hubble mission. He talked about the value of the Hubble and made it clear that he'd <b>like</b> to have the servicing mission put back into place. However, he never promised you a rose garden... er SM-4. <br /><br />In addition -- mind you this was *before* the talk of seriously cutting back shuttle flights and reducing the 'completion' of the ISS was put onto the table.

 

[nacnud]

There is a solution to all this, the single stick SDLV. If that can be configured to launch supplies to the ISS it could be a way out. <br /><br />As an aside could the ISS suport two robot arms? Even if only one moved at a time?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Nope, you are not "reading between the lines". Griffin wast to service Hubble."</font><br /><br />I'm assuming 'wast' equals 'wants'. However, I'm not really clear on what you're correcting here. erioladastra indicated that Griffin had promised a Hubble repair mission <i>"Griffin has made it clear it will happen."</i><br /><br />I stated that Griffin had not said that, but rather had said he'd re-look into the prospect. Googling for references, I find this which contains the statement <b>I</b> remember from the senate hearings:<br /><br /><i>"Griffin also said he would reconsider the decision by his predecessor, former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, to cancel a planned shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. “We should reassess the earlier decision in light of what we learn after return to flight,” Griffin said.<br /><br />Griffin said that once the shuttle has flown successfully again for the first time since the February 2003 accident that destroyed the shuttle Columbia and killed its crew, he would review two options: sending a shuttle to refurbish the popular space telescope or mounting a simple robotic mission to de-orbit Hubble and plunge it into the ocean."</i><br /><br />I don't believe I indicated anywhere that Griffin <b>preferred</b> not to have a mission -- in fact I said the opposite. What I indicated in my post is that Griffin didn't <b>promise</b> a serviceing mission and may not be able to deliver one given a potentially reduced number of flights.<br /><br />So where exactly are these lines that you say I'm missing?

 

[shoogerbrugge]

you just have to stack some gyrodrones after the Shuttle is gone, since the new design don't fit the Progress or ATV. <br /><br />How many parts that tend to breakdown can only be lifted by the shuttle? How would they solve this problem?<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

Actually, I spoke to him directly about it. He may not have stated as much as that publically, but he is VERY money conscious so when you turn on planning at NASA, you turn on the mission. Next two go ok, we will be doing another HST SM.

 

[le3119]

We should finish the ISS, even if it means extending the Shuttle fleet beyond 2010. But the station should be fitted with a spacedock for a lunar transport system, which gives humans access to the Moon once per month. If we just leave off at a completed orbiting station with no lunar or interplanetary extentions, we will not get a sufficient return for our investment. The ISS must be expandable and integratable with next generation concepts. Perhaps a shuttle or two should remain in space permanently as a cislunar truck.

 

[strandedonearth]

Actually, I disagree that the ISS should have a spacedock. While it's been said that there's not much penalty for a lunar mission departing the ISS, I'd think there's a greater penalty launching to the ISS than to a more equatorial orbit, especially from an equatorial launch site. It would also make for a 'dirtier' microgravity and vacuum environment for what is supposed to be a science and research station.<br /><br />I'd like to see a separate station more dedicated to staging, construction and refueling of Earth-departing probes and vessels. More stations also means a bigger market for resupply services.<br /><br />Now I know this wouldn't be easy, but what would be the minimum dV needed to ferry people or cargo from the ISS to an equatorial station at the same altitude?

 

[ehs40]

i think the iss should have some kind of a dock for stuff and it should get finshed no matter what but the idea for another station just for docking and refulling should wait till the iss is completed

 

[strandedonearth]

Thanks, SG. If I have my units right, that's about... 9500mph? Ouch, that's about 55% of orbital velocity! Obviously a crew transfer or rescue mission would be out of the question, unless (huge unless) some sort of propellantless thruster was used (electrodynamic tether?).<br /><br />Can I safely assume that a vehicle calculating an Earth-return burn from the Moon could choose between the ISS and an equatorial station with little fuel penalty (assuming the vehicle was going to enter orbit)?

 

[strandedonearth]

"i think the iss should have some kind of a dock for stuff and it should get finshed no matter what but the idea for another station just for docking and refulling should wait till the iss is completed "<br /><br />Hehe, well, I certainly wasn't thinking it would happen anytime soon. And the assembly function I envision is closer to construction than docking. It just seems to me that using the ISS to assemble spacecraft for Earth departure would contaminate the microgravity research environment.<br /><br />Then again, life-support research, life science, and bioresearch shouldn't be affected by construction activities. Only experiments that would be affected by vibrations, attitude control, or pollution of the vacuum environment would have problems on a construction platform. So I guess there wouldn't be too much need for a separate station unless someone had specific experiments to perform. So I guess I'll shut up now.

 

[halman]

RadarRedux,<br /><br />It breaks my heart to think that this country is not even willing to ante up enough cash to finish the International Space Station, much less to refurbish the shuttle fleet for another 10 years or so of service. America throws money around like there is no tomorrow, except on the one program that would guarentee that, not only will there be a tomorrow, but that it will be better than today.<br /><br />If America could gather its collective will, and assert that space is important, than there would be no question of having sufficient resources to do what we want in space. No other investments this government could make would have payoffs like space exploration, yet people are so short sighted that they want to spend money on things which will be useless if our economy is not turned around so that creating wealth becomes more important than spending it.<br /><br />And the potential that a true collaboration between Russia and the U. S. has is staggering, with their accumulated knowledge, stable of proven launch vehicles, and willingness to work for pocket change. We have got to let go of the past, and move on. We are punishing ourselves in our effort to prevent Russia from getting dollars for hardware, just because we disapprove of something which they did years ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'd like to see a separate station more dedicated to staging, construction and refueling of Earth-departing probes and vessels<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There will be one. Chinese are building their Shenzou's orbital modules so that they can dock them together to form a small station.<br />

 

[krrr]

"While it's been said that there's not much penalty for a lunar mission departing the ISS, I'd think there's a greater penalty launching to the ISS than to a more equatorial orbit, especially from an equatorial launch site."<br /><br />This is a common misconception. There's no penalty involved when launching from a lower-latitude site to an inclined orbit. You just aim northeast (or southeast) instead of due east. Of course, there might be range safety issues.<br /><br />Lowering LEO inclination is much more difficult, because it requires a plane change maneuver at 28000 km/h.

 

[henryhallam]

To the best of my knowledge this is how it goes in order of best payload to worst payload:<br /><br />Low-inclination orbit from equatorial launch site<br /><br />High-inclination orbit from equatorial launch site (as long as orbit inclination less than 87 degrees)<br /><br />Same-inclination orbit from mid-latitude launch site (i.e. orbit inclination = latitude)<br /><br />Higher-inclination orbit from mid-latitude launch site (i.e. orbit inclination /> latitude)<br /><br />Lower-inclination orbit from mid-latitude launch site (i.e. orbit inclination < latitude)<br /><br />Obviously the latter two may swap positions depending on how far off the difference is between orbit inclination and launch site latitude.

 

[krrr]

I think as long as the latitude is lower than the target inclination, things don't matter much. Near the equator, one gets more free delta-v from the earth's rotation, but this is offset by the fact that one must deviate more from the ideal eastern launch direction.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It breaks my heart to think that this country is not even willing to ante up enough cash to finish the International Space Station, much less to refurbish the shuttle fleet for another 10 years or so of service.</font>/i><br /><br />Even within the space community these issues are controversial. For example, Under O'Keefe and even more under Griffin the ISS plays very little role in the future plans of NASA. Griffin's speeches since becoming NASA Administrator say virtually nothing about the valuable research to be done on ISS or how it will be a jumping off point for future missions.<br /><br />I do believe Griffin sees the shuttle as important, but primarily because its technology will serve as the basis for a new HLV, which in turn is the cornerstone technology of the VSE.<br /><br />I think Griffin's strategy is to determine the most graceful transition from the past vision (Shuttle & ISS) to the new vision (HLV, Moon, and Mars) given that budgets are relatively stable. If the transition is too slow, then costs are higher and there is risk that the new vision will be cancelled by future Congresses or Presidents. If the transition is too fast, then you risk alienating important Congressional members whose districts and states receive money on the old vision, and Congress and taxpayers may ask, "If you are now saying that the old vision isn't important, why should I believe you when you say the new vision is important?"<br /><br />Regarding increasing funds for NASA, there are an infinite number of good ideas that need funding, but only a finite amount of money. Health insurance for the uninsured, AIDS research, the looming medicare and social security crises, tax relief, millions of children dying every year from preventable diseases, armor for soldiers dying everyday from improvised explosives, deficits, etc., etc. I think in that competition, I don't expect NASA will see enough of a funding increase to both continue wi</i>

 

[frodo1008]

I agree with you Halman, but the same thing has happened before. In the late 1960's and early 1970's we threw away the greatest chance possible for such a future. It was thown away to "Win" a war in southeast asia, and now we are going to throw is away again to "Win" another war in Iraq and the Middle-East. It seems that we not only continue to uselessly fight the Cold War all over again, but we also firght other wars to "Win". <br /><br />If we continue to "Win" all these various wars we will eventualy lose everything. God alone knows how right Eisenhower (a Republican and a great military general) was when he warned of the affects of the military/industrial society. We now spend more on our military than the ENTIRE rest of the world does put togather! Feel any safer?? <br /><br />If we could just spend even 10% of the military budget for civilian space efforts it would more than triple NASA's budget, and leave a hugh amount of money left over for people like Elon Musk and Burt Rutan to try out their ideas. Our continuing stupidity just astounds me!!!