ISS Configuration and Completion

radarredux · May 12, 2005

More news about the shuttle and the ISS. Once again Griffin has (1) pointed out that something other than the shuttle may be used to complete the station, and (2) the exact configuration of the station (and hence the number of missions) is still in flux. Shuttle's Retirement May Affect ISS Construction, NASA Chief Says http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050512_rtf_shuttle.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />“We may not be able to make the exact completion date that we desire,” Griffin told reporters during a recent shuttle update. “But we will complete it.”<hr /></blockquote> ... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />“The reality is that we don’t know how many flights are needed, if we’re successful returning [the shuttle] to flight,” said Michael Kostelnik, NASA’s deputy associate administrator for the shuttle and space station programs, during a space operations summit earlier this year. “The space shuttle is critically dependent on what we intend to do with the International Space Station and those requirements are still being worked out.<hr /></blockquote>

henryhallam · May 12, 2005

Does anyone have an approximate value for the current mass of the ISS (say, to the nearest tonne) and of the nominal "completed" configuration? I didn't have much luck with google.

nacnud · May 12, 2005

Are they obsolete already? In some respects yes, in others no. For example I can't really see the point in using the ISS to grow protein crystals anymore, other techniques have improved so that this isn't really needed any more. However I'm sure there is still a lot of fundamental material science to be done

R1 · May 12, 2005

I might be wrong but I think there's at least about 8 space station modules so far on life support down here on the ground because they haven't made it up there yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 12, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I might be wrong but I think there's at least about 8 space station modules ...<hr /></blockquote> Off the top of my head, I make it Node 2, Columbus, Kibo and Cuppola. Any advances on that? I think the Russians want to throw another one or two modules up their end of station, but they'll be launching anything additional they want themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

najab · May 12, 2005

>...but they'll be launching anything additional they want themselves.If they finish the SPP, it's supposed to go up on a Shuttle flight.

SpaceKiwi · May 12, 2005

Yes, that's right, my mistake. From Griffin's language it sounds like they might struggle to pick up a ride, even if they do get completed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

radarredux · May 13, 2005

[Warning: this came out darker than I expected...] /> Well, my question is, what is "it"? An engineering test bed, or a science facility?/i> My opinion is that ISS is a political instrument. The most common reason cited for spending more money on the shuttle and the ISS is to "fulfill our obligations to our international partners." The ISS and shuttle programs also support a lot of jobs in congressional districts. Whenever there has been discussions to close down a NASA facility there has always been strong pushback from the local political leaders. Here is a quote from a recent Huntsville time article: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, who chairs the Senate subcommittee in charge of NASA's budget, said Tuesday he likes what he's heard so far from Griffin. "If he works with me, we're going to be best friends," a grinning Shelby told the chamber group. "We're going to try to redefine the role of Marshall in a positive way." Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, called Griffin a "breath of fresh air."<hr /></blockquote> http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1115803006285210.xml I read similar stories right before the Moon2Mars commission was to release their report. Elected officials came out proclaiming that no NASA facility would be shut down. During NASA Q&A session after the M2M report was released, most of the NASA employees seemed to ask how their jobs were going to be protected. The vision was pretty much a non-issue. Can you imagine the uproar if Griffin came out and said that there is no way to justify the expected $60 billion to finish building and operating ISS through 2015 (something he essentially said last year), so NASA is going

scottb50 · May 13, 2005

It would be a shame to throw away want exists. If nothing else to go further will will require similar facilities, so why start from square one again? Maybe, today, it doesn't do everything it was meant to do, but even if the mission changes it is a proven asset. Whether Shuttle can expand it, or it even needs expansion, is another issue, the fact it is there is the most important aspect. Maybe projects and jobs does make more difference than what could be accomplished, but if if that is the only point I would say abandon it and save the money. There is a higher purpose and that is leading the way to orbit and then beyond, too bad politics has to stand in the way. Obviously Shelby cares only about his district and could care less about getting off the Planet. That's why the only possible way is to forget NASA and other governments. If all the money wasted on ISS, for political reasons, would have gone into it to begin with, it would have been completed in the eighties and we would have people, instead of robots on Mars right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nacnud · May 13, 2005

About the habitation module: This was cancelled along with the Crew Return Vehicle and a couple of other useful but not essential modules. The habitation module its self was very similar to destiny (the US lab module) but it contained different racks i.e. life support, crew quarters, kitchen, big table, comfy chairs, widescreen TV etc.... While a lot of the stuff was nice to have it wasn't technically essential, the solution was to grow nodes 2 and 3 by 4 racks each and move the life support and other critical racks to them instead.

nacnud · May 13, 2005

Yep the one thing that I think the ISS needs as a re-supply vehicle capable of brining back an International Standard Payload Rack. Only then will it be possible to easily think about retiring the shuttle and keeping the ISS supplied.

radarredux · May 13, 2005

Another data point: NASA Chief Pushes for Shuttle's Replacement http://www.space.com/news/ap_050513_griffin_cev.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Griffin pledged that NASA will complete the space station, currently just half built. But if the station still isn't finished when the shuttles are retired, the space agency may turn to unmanned rockets to haul up the remaining gear.<hr /></blockquote>

radarredux · May 13, 2005

> I agree, Rutan is a great AIRPLANE designer but he is, in my opinion, streaching his knowledge when discussion Orbital spacecraft./i> I remember virtually identical comments when he first announced he was going after the X Prize. Many people mentioned that he hadn't even gone above Mach 1 before.

nacnud · May 13, 2005

I agree, Rutan is a great AIRPLANE designer but he is, in my opinion, stretching his knowledge when discussion Orbital spacecraft. I have to agree, but don't you think that he is going about learning how to design an orbital system the right way? /> 1 Suborbital experimental hops /> 2 Suborbital COMMERCIAL hops /> 3 Experimental orbital flights />4 ?

radarredux · May 13, 2005

> The second, is much harder, with no realistic financing in sight/i> I think he has several 10s of millions from Virgin to build a larger sub-orbital system. This will allow him to continue gaining experience, acquiring people skills, and developing many key capabilities (e.g., a larger version of WhiteKnight). He also built the air-drop version of the X-38, and he is contracted to perform drop tests on the X-37. He has also had, and will probably continue to acquire a number of military contracts (or subcontracts) that could have relevance. Also, several other t/Space members have relevant DOD contracts (e.g., SpaceX's recent $100 million DOD contract) which can be used to develop key experience and capabilities. Still, I don't think the regular equity markets will come forward with several hundred million for development of the t/Space vision. There is too much risk (technical failure, government regulation supressing tourism market, customers failing to materialize). I think a big chunk needs to be underwritten by the government. t/Space wants $400 million total for their plan (spanning several years), which is just the cost overrun for RTF in the next NASA budget and the amount of Congressionally-mandated pork barrel in next years budget.

Search

ISS Configuration and Completion

radarredux

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

nacnud

Guest

R1

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

najab

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

radarredux

Guest

scottb50

Guest

nacnud

Guest

nacnud

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

nacnud

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page