ISS Habitation Module?

MarkStanaway · Apr 21, 2008

As new modules are added to the ISS and it becomes a truly ‘international’ Space Station soon have a permanent six person crew the lack of a dedicated accommodation module will become more acutely felt. The present arrangement where crews ‘camp out’ in various compartments during their sleep periods is hardly satisfactory. With the increased crew size we can expect shifts with continuous operations in the various laboratories. It will be hard for crews to get a decent rest with all the activity and the continuous racket from pumps fans and electronic equipment. How many of us camp out in our offices or nearby corridors? A dedicated accommodation module will give an enhanced experience to crews during their tours on the ISS with benefits to their performance and overall mental health. The decision by the US early in the planning stage not to build a dedicated Habitation Module was regrettable but opens up an opportunity for another partner to fill the gap. The arrangement at present is for crews to sleep in the as yet unnamed Node 3 a stop-gap measure at best. A plan outlined in the Feb issue of the British Interplanetary Society magazine ‘Spaceflight’ urges the Britain to become a full fledged member of the ISS by building two dedicated Habitation Extension Modules (HEM) to be attached to node 3. One HEM will have individual rooms for six crew members and have extra radiation shielding which will significantly reduce overall crew dosage during their six month tours, while the other will be a dedicated recreation room with a large screen and could be used for video conferences and meetings becoming in effect the ‘staff room’ of the station. Such a plan will enable the ISS facilities to be more fully utilised and at last bring Britain back into the fold of true space faring nations reversing a position taken by a series of short sighted governments since the 1960’s. Habitation modules will probably be part of any future expedition to Mars and experience gained from having them on the ISS will place any partner supplying them in the box seat for this long anticipated expedition. Bring it on!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_X_1 · Apr 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As new modules are added to the ISS and it becomes a truly ‘international’ Space Station soon have a permanent six person crew the lack of a dedicated accommodation module will become more acutely felt. The present arrangement where crews ‘camp out’ in various compartments during their sleep periods is hardly satisfactory. </DIV>It is not needed. Also the crew does not camp out.   The SM has 2 quarters and there is a TESS in the LAB.   Node 2 is the defacto Hab module.  It will have sleeping quarters for 3.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JimL · Apr 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the lack of a dedicated accommodation module will become more acutely felt. The present arrangement where crews ‘camp out’ in various compartments during their sleep periods is hardly satisfactory. </DIV>Of interest?  (See end of page.) http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/astro/report/2008/0802.html More like bedrooms in a house than a mini-motel or lounge.

PistolPete · Apr 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As new modules are added to the ISS and it becomes a truly ‘international’ Space Station soon have a permanent six person crew the lack of a dedicated accommodation module will become more acutely felt. The present arrangement where crews ‘camp out’ in various compartments during their sleep periods is hardly satisfactory. With the increased crew size we can expect shifts with continuous operations in the various laboratories. It will be hard for crews to get a decent rest with all the activity and the continuous racket from pumps fans and electronic equipment. How many of us camp out in our offices or nearby corridors? A dedicated accommodation module will give an enhanced experience to crews during their tours on the ISS with benefits to their performance and overall mental health. The decision by the US early in the planning stage not to build a dedicated Habitation Module was regrettable but opens up an opportunity for another partner to fill the gap. The arrangement at present is for crews to sleep in the as yet unnamed Node 3 a stop-gap measure at best. A plan outlined in the Feb issue of the British Interplanetary Society magazine ‘Spaceflight’ urges the Britain to become a full fledged member of the ISS by building two dedicated Habitation Extension Modules (HEM) to be attached to node 3. One HEM will have individual rooms for six crew members and have extra radiation shielding which will significantly reduce overall crew dosage during their six month tours, while the other will be a dedicated recreation room with a large screen and could be used for video conferences and meetings becoming in effect the ‘staff room’ of the station. Such a plan will enable the ISS facilities to be more fully utilised and at last bring Britain back into the fold of true space faring nations reversing a position taken by a series of short sighted governments since the 1960’s. Habitation modules will probably be part of any future expedition to Mars and experience gained from having them on the ISS will place any partner supplying them in the box seat for this long anticipated expedition. Bring it on!!! Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV>It's actually going to be node 2 that has the crew rest quarters that are pictured in the post above.  Node 3 will have most of the life support equipment for a six-person crew.There was actually a hab module built (two if you count Transhab), but it was canceled due to budget constraints while partially complete.I totally agree with you that a dedicated hab module would be a much better solution than the current situation, but Great Britain has, unfortunately, not had much of a track record when it comes to putting manned spacecraft into orbit.  They have a small, but well organized and very vocal minority that is very interested in having a manned space program for Britain, the BIS is but one of them.  The main problem with turning their dreams into reality is the complete and total lack of any shred of public support for such an expenditure.  The guys and gals at the University of Bristol obviously have a well thought out idea, but I just don't see it going anywhere.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

cosmictraveler · Apr 21, 2008

"The decision by the US early in the planning stage not to build a dedicated Habitation Module was regrettable but opens up an opportunity for another partner to fill the gap."That is why they designed the ISS to expand as extra things are needed. Like any "home" you can always add to whatever you already have if you need to and have the money. Why not South Korea to add a habitat module, it seems they are interested if GB doesn't want to join. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph </div>

aphh · Apr 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They have a small, but well organized and very vocal minority that is very interested in having a manned space program for Britain, the BIS is but one of them.  The main problem with turning their dreams into reality is the complete and total lack of any shred of public support for such an expenditure.</DIV>The situation is the same in Finland. Britain could try to make the HAB module a joint venture with Finland. There is support for space program and even manned spaceflight in Finland, a year ago ESA organized an event where people from Europe were invited to send proposals for ESA's space policy for the coming decades.Of all ESA member states most proposals came from Finland. Mine was selected for the 2nd round, but not in the few finalists who were then invited to join ESA's planning meeting in UK. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />

MarkStanaway · Apr 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of interest?  (See end of page.) http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/astro/report/2008/0802.htmlMore like bedrooms in a house than a mini-motel or lounge. Posted by JimL</DIV> These look like a good start. I guess they can be installed in handy 'free space'. They at least seem to offer some privacy and may cut down on backgrund noise levels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ThereIWas2 · Apr 22, 2008

All these potential hab-module backers could save a lot of development time if they pooled their money and subcontracted the actual module to Bigelow, and launched it on an Ariane (or Atlas is that interfacing is further along).  I am pretty sure one of the possible configurations of Sundancer or BA330 was to put a ISS-style berthing adapter on one end.  The Bigelow modules have better micrometeorite proection than the existing ISS construction, and radiation shielding is easily added  by internal water bladders.   It seems ideal for a sleeping, eating, and relaxation quarters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

frodo1008 · May 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All these potential hab-module backers could save a lot of development time if they pooled their money and subcontracted the actual module to Bigelow, and launched it on an Ariane (or Atlas is that interfacing is further along).  I am pretty sure one of the possible configurations of Sundancer or BA330 was to put a ISS-style berthing adapter on one end.  The Bigelow modules have better micrometeorite proection than the existing ISS construction, and radiation shielding is easily added  by internal water bladders.   It seems ideal for a sleeping, eating, and relaxation quarters. Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV>Now that is the best suggestion that I have seen for the ISS in a long time!!I am also somewhat certain that Bigelow would even be willing to shoulder at least some of the cost for the great and free publicity such a module would give his pure private efforts.  Besides such an effort makes great sense, as NASA acrtually did the original research for the Bigelow modules.  Correctly in my way of thinking, I think that is one of NASA's most important jobs.  That is, the continuing effort to see to it that the American aerospace industry remains one of the best in the world. of not THE best in the world!Heck, NASA itself could probably afford it as it would make a good partnership for them also!!!!

ThereIWas2 · May 5, 2008

The big hangup would be the rendesvous.   NASA wants to see lots of practice runs like they did with the ATV to make sure it will align properly and can abort if necessary.  I am sure Bigelow is working on such things because he intends the modules to assemble themselves in orbit.  Whether it would be done in time to be of any use on ISS before it is decomissioned is the question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

stackhouse · May 7, 2008

i support any and all  expantion/s of the iss that would enhance the experience for the future of manned spaceflight and or space science and tech..while space science and tech may be  the primay reason for the iss, the iss is also a designed as a "manned" space experment and as such we need to give our astronuats  the best Habitation we can give them...a seperate "set/s" of Habitation module"s" would be great!! peggy would be proud!!! however i do have one question?....do all astronauts despite origin have access to all the lab mods? or is the japanees lab (for an example) just for the japan's experiment's only??

Zipi · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>do all astronauts despite origin have access to all the lab mods? or is the japanees lab (for an example) just for the japan's experiment's only??  Posted by stackhouse</DIV> I think you can find a somekind of answer from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_StationQuote from the article:Utilization<div class="thumb tright">There is no fixed percentage of ownership for the whole space station. Rather, Article 5 of the IGA sets forth that each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals.[41] Therefore, for each ISS module only one partner retains sole ownership. Still, the agreements to use the space station facilities are more complex.</div>The three planned Russian segments Zvezda, the Multipurpose Laboratory Module and the Docking and Cargo Modules are made and owned by Russia, which, as of today, also retains its current and prospective usage (Zarya, although constructed and launched by Russia, has been paid for and is officially owned by NASA). In order to use the Russian parts of the station, the partners use bilateral agreements (third and fourth layer of the above outlined legal structure). The rest of the station, (the U.S., the European and Japanese pressurized modules as well as the truss and solar panel structure and the two robotic arms) has been agreed to be utilized as follows (% refers to time that each structure may be used by each partner):<ol><li>Columbus: 51% for ESA, 49% for NASA and CSA (CSA has agreed with NASA to use 2.3% of all non-Russian ISS structure) </li><li>Kibo: 51% for JAXA, 49% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) </li><li>Destiny Lab: 100% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) as well as 100% of the truss payload accommodation </li><li>Crew time and power from the solar panel structure, as well as rights to purchase supporting services (upload/download and communication services) 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA, 8.3% for ESA and 2.3% for CSA </li></ol> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

stackhouse · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you can find a somekind of answer from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_StationQuote from the article:UtilizationThere is no fixed percentage of ownership for the whole space station. Rather, Article 5 of the IGA sets forth that each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals.[41] Therefore, for each ISS module only one partner retains sole ownership. Still, the agreements to use the space station facilities are more complex.The three planned Russian segments Zvezda, the Multipurpose Laboratory Module and the Docking and Cargo Modules are made and owned by Russia, which, as of today, also retains its current and prospective usage (Zarya, although constructed and launched by Russia, has been paid for and is officially owned by NASA). In order to use the Russian parts of the station, the partners use bilateral agreements (third and fourth layer of the above outlined legal structure). The rest of the station, (the U.S., the European and Japanese pressurized modules as well as the truss and solar panel structure and the two robotic arms) has been agreed to be utilized as follows (% refers to time that each structure may be used by each partner):Columbus: 51% for ESA, 49% for NASA and CSA (CSA has agreed with NASA to use 2.3% of all non-Russian ISS structure) Kibo: 51% for JAXA, 49% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) Destiny Lab: 100% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) as well as 100% of the truss payload accommodation Crew time and power from the solar panel structure, as well as rights to purchase supporting services (upload/download and communication services) 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA, 8.3% for ESA and 2.3% for CSA Posted by Zipi</DIV> hmmm..so, anotherwords  there is an "legal" and technical agreement, for perpuses of legalitys of who owns what,  access and useage. however, due to in'tl peace, tranquelity, ect and for the love of peggy, this agreement/clause may not be strickly adheard to unless some cops a major aditude ? ok!!

stackhouse · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of interest?  (See end of page.) http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/astro/report/2008/0802.htmlMore like bedrooms in a house than a mini-motel or lounge. Posted by JimL</DIV>oh for the love of peggy......this is the "personal" hab mod? geez they might as well sleep in a coffin..so cramped

Cygnus_2112 · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As new modules are added to the ISS and it becomes a truly ‘international’ Space Station soon have a permanent six person crew the lack of a dedicated accommodation module will become more acutely felt. The present arrangement where crews ‘camp out’ in various compartments during their sleep periods is hardly satisfactory.   Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV> It is not needed. Also the crew does not camp out.   The SM has 2 quarters and there is a TESS in the LAB.   Node 2 is the defacto Hab module.  It will have sleeping quarters for 3.

MarkStanaway · May 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is not needed. Also the crew does not camp out.   The SM has 2 quarters and there is a TESS in the LAB.   Node 2 is the defacto Hab module.  It will have sleeping quarters for 3.   Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV> These arrangements are still a poor second best. I was thinking of something more along the lines of the proposed interior of Spaceship Two. No clutter of instrumentation workstations and the like and most importantly sound proofed from the rest of ISS. Once the Kibo becomes operational Node 2 will be like trying to relax at a busy intersection. Habitation modules attached to Node 3 seems like a good option with easy access to the Cupola where the view of the earth below will be truely spectacular. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.  These arrangements are still a poor second best. I was thinking of something more along the lines of the proposed interior of Spaceship Two. 2 .No clutter of instrumentation workstations and the like and most importantly sound proofed from the rest of ISS. Once the Kibo becomes operational Node 2 will be like trying to relax at a busy intersection. </DIV>1/  You are basing this on what experience? and why is spaceship 2 interior so good?   It doesn't go into orbit and it doesn't have the physical constraints of the modules 2.  There are no nstrumentation workstations in Node 2 and the living quarters are sound proofed.  Also the ISS isn't going to have shifts around the clock and so node 2 will be quiet during non duty hours

MarkStanaway · May 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1/  You are basing this on what experience? and why is spaceship 2 interior so good?   It doesn't go into orbit and it doesn't have the physical constraints of the modules 2.  There are no nstrumentation workstations in Node 2 and the living quarters are sound proofed.  Also the ISS isn't going to have shifts around the clock and so node 2 will be quiet during non duty hours Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV> I’m sure astronauts would not complain whatever accommodations are on offer. Hell, who wouldn’t for the chance of a stint on the ISS. What I am saying is that for all the billions that have been spent on the ISS so far why not have the best possible accommodation to match the effort being put into Research and Engineering. The reference to Spaceship Two was to list an example where the ‘human experience’ of spaceflight is the prime motivation for its development. I know it is only designed for a 15 minute or hop into space and the interior has been designed with this in mind. With ISS astronauts spending at least a half to a third of their time in sleep and recreation they deserve to have an area dedicated to this purpose. This amounts to two or three months of accumulated time for an average tour of duty on the ISS. Node 2 is by definition a connecting hub for other components of the ISS. This is its primary function and it is only being used for accommodation as a secondary consideration because the original Habitation Module was cancelled at an early concept stage for ISS development. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nibb31 · May 18, 2008

There are much more useful modules that can be attached to the ISS than habitation modules. The cancelled centrifuge comes to mind, an observatory, a greenhouse, or more solar panels for redundancy...  I'd much rather see efforts put into a new centrifuge module than into a hab module. The ISS is a work environment, a scientific facility, like polar stations, not a space hotel. There haven't been any complaints from the crew that the ISS uncomfortable to the point of compromising the scientific work that needs to be done. Now that the construction phase is coming to the end, the focus should be on scientific return on investment, not comfort.

Cygnus_2112 · May 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  I’m sure astronauts would not complain whatever accommodations are on offer. Hell, who wouldn’t for the chance of a stint on the ISS.What I am saying is that for all the billions that have been spent on the ISS so far why not have the best possible accommodation to match the effort being put into Research and Engineering.The reference to Spaceship Two was to list an example where the ‘human experience’ of spaceflight is the prime motivation for its development. I know it is only designed for a 15 minute or hop into space and the interior has been designed with this in mind. With ISS astronauts spending at least a half to a third of their time in sleep and recreation they deserve to have an area dedicated to this purpose. This amounts to two or three months of accumulated time for an average tour of duty on the ISS. </DIV> So why waste more money on something that isn't needed.  The accommodations are good, it isn't a cruise ship.  This isn't a joy ride like spaceship one.  The accomodations are better than on submarines.   ISS is an outpost and not a vacation spot, and likewise things are astere.

MarkStanaway · May 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So why waste more money on something that isn't needed.  The accommodations are good, it isn't a cruise ship.  This isn't a joy ride like spaceship one.  The accomodations are better than on submarines.   ISS is an outpost and not a vacation spot, and likewise things are astere.   Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV>The original planners of the ISS must have thought the inclusion of a Habitation Module was reasonable when they made provision for it when drawing up the original concept plans. It was only for budgetry pressures that it was cancelled. As the ISS nears completion and it becomes fully operational it would seem to be a good time to reconsider this decision. There is an opportunity here for one of the partners to come to the fore and finish the station as it was originally planned.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The original planners of the ISS must have thought the inclusion of a Habitation Module was reasonable when they made provision for it when drawing up the original concept plans. It was only for budgetry pressures that it was cancelled. As the ISS nears completion and it becomes fully operational it would seem to be a good time to reconsider this decision. There is an opportunity here for one of the partners to come to the fore and finish the station as it was originally planned.  Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV>it is not needed when the whole ISS was descoped and therefore it was cancelled.  The need was also negated by the addition of the service module.   Since the number of experiments have been reduced (and won't be increased) and there will be empty rack positions, there is no need for more volume.  Hab module systems were used to back fill the lab.  Also node 3 was not part of the plan when there was a hab module, so it too negated the need for a hab.  A hab would use more resources from the ISS it makes no sense to add another bedroom and garage when there is nothing to put in them

MarkStanaway · May 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it is not needed when the whole ISS was descoped and therefore it was cancelled.  The need was also negated by the addition of the service module.   Since the number of experiments have been reduced (and won't be increased) and there will be empty rack positions, there is no need for more volume.  Hab module systems were used to back fill the lab.  Also node 3 was not part of the plan when there was a hab module, so it too negated the need for a hab.  A hab would use more resources from the ISS it makes no sense to add another bedroom and garage when there is nothing to put in them Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV> To use your analogy this is a house with no bedrooms. As more resources are invested in the ISS there will be more pressure to make the most of what has been invested in it. Recent moves to restore the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) mission to the ISS flight manifest is a demonstration of this trend. If the trend continues, and I am sure it will there will be pressure to maintain NASA’s participation in the ISS beyond 2015 as that date draws near. More capability will likely be added over time and the ISS may well be still operational in 2020 if history is anything to go by. Remember the longevity of MIR. Under such a scenario the viability of a dedicated Hab Module becomes an increasingly reasonable option. Experience in the use of dedicated a Hab Module will have a direct application to whatever follows the ISS be it accommodation for the interplanetary cruise phase of a Mars expedition or Lunar outpost Habitats. It will also allow for the expansion of the crew to more than six once Orion and whatever replaces Soyuz become operational to allow for a fuller exploitation of the ISS’s experimental capabilities. Zvezda the Service Module which has sleeping quarters for two is reportedly one of the noisiest parts of the ISS with astronauts having to wear ear plugs to have some respite from the background racket. It is also one of the oldest components of the ISS having being originally constructed as far back as 1986 as the core of MIR 2 before being finally launched as the original SM in 2000. It will be showing its age by the time the second decade of the 21st century comes around. The Hab Module will have low power requirements in comparison to the power hungry Research Modules. The HEM’s proposed by the Bristol University crowd will only draw a modest 1Kw from the ISS as they will have their own solar panels. I’m sure a similar situation would be the case with those Bigelow inflatables although I haven’t checked on this.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · May 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  As more resources are invested in the ISS there will be more pressure to make the most of what has been invested in it.Recent moves to restore the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) mission to the ISS flight manifest is a demonstration of this trend. If the trend continues, and I am sure it will there will be pressure to maintain NASA’s participation in the ISS beyond 2015 as that date draws near. 2. More capability will likely be added over time and the ISS may well be still operational in 2020 if history is anything to go by. 3. Remember the longevity of MIR. Under such a scenario the viability of a dedicated Hab Module becomes an increasingly reasonable option. 4. Experience in the use of dedicated a Hab Module will have a direct application to whatever follows the ISS be it accommodation for the interplanetary cruise phase of a Mars expedition or Lunar outpost Habitats. 5. It will also allow for the expansion of the crew to more than six once Orion and whatever replaces Soyuz become operational to allow for a fuller exploitation of the ISS’s experimental capabilities. 6. It is also one of the oldest components of the ISS having being originally constructed as far back as 1986 as the core of MIR 2 before being finally launched as the original SM in 2000. It will be showing its age by the time the second decade of the 21st century comes around. Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV> 1.  Incorrect conclusion.  The moves to restore AMS have to do with the money invested in AMS.  AMS doesn't need the ISS, it can be modified as a freeflyer.2.  Another incorrect conclusion.  A. MIR history is not applicable.  B.  nothing of the sort is in work at this time.  not even low level studies.  C.  anything other than the current plans would take money directly from the Constellation program3.  How does Mir longevity have a bearing on whether the ISS should have a dedicated hab module.   The current ISS arrangement is applicable for as long as the ISS exists. 4.    incorrect conclusion.  The whole ISS is a hab module as far as applicable experience for later programs.  having a dedicated module isn't going to add anymore data.5.   incorrect conclusion.  hab module  is not the limiting factor for ISS crew size.  it is power and the ECLSS systems.  Additionally, having a 6 person Orion doesn't increase the crew size since the Orion will not be used as a CRV which the soyuz is 6. The age of the SM has no bearing on supporting the habitability requirements of crew members. However it has major implications  on the ISS to remain viable.  No SM, no ISS.  this is also applicable to the FGB, Node 1 and Z1 truss which are the same "age" and can't be replaced.

MarkStanaway · May 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  Incorrect conclusion.  The moves to restore AMS have to do with the money invested in AMS.  AMS doesn't need the ISS, it can be modified as a freeflyer.2.  Another incorrect conclusion.  A. MIR history is not applicable.  B.  nothing of the sort is in work at this time.  not even low level studies.  C.  anything other than the current plans would take money directly from the Constellation program3.  How does Mir longevity have a bearing on whether the ISS should have a dedicated hab module.   The current ISS arrangement is applicable for as long as the ISS exists. 4.    incorrect conclusion.  The whole ISS is a hab module as far as applicable experience for later programs.  having a dedicated module isn't going to add anymore data.5.   incorrect conclusion.  hab module  is not the limiting factor for ISS crew size.  it is power and the ECLSS systems.  Additionally, having a 6 person Orion doesn't increase the crew size since the Orion will not be used as a CRV which the soyuz is 6. The age of the SM has no bearing on supporting the habitability requirements of crew members. However it has major implications  on the ISS to remain viable.  No SM, no ISS.  this is also applicable to the FGB, Node 1 and Z1 truss which are the same "age" and can't be replaced.  Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV> 1.  The point here was to illustrate a trend. Maybe not the best example 2 and 3. I’ll give you those 4. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one 5. I’ll give you that one 6. I wasn’t questioning the functionality of Zvezda. I was pointing out its shortcomings as an accommodation module. In summary I see the situation like this Currently ·        There is no dedicated accommodation area on the ISS ·        The present accommodation arrangements are a compromise ·        The original Habitation Module (HM) was cancelled mainly for budgetary reasons ·        NASA has no plans for a HM ·        None of the other partners have any plans for a HM ·        The ISS is likely to be around for a long time because of the investment ·        Long term plans are for Node 3 to act as a defacto HM Benefits of a HM ·        A ‘time out’ area for ISS crews ·        A sound proofed area for crews during their rest periods ·        Enhanced radiation protection for crews during their rest periods ·        An opportunity for a new partner or private enterprise to participate in the ISS ·        Experience from the construction and operation of a HM will have application for post ISS operations ·        It will provide international standard accommodation to match the investment in this international research facility. The Options ·        Habitation Extension Modules attached to Node 3 ·        Utilising Bigelow inflatables ·        An opportunity for the Russians who appear to be newly flush with funds this would be a useful replacement for that cancelled research module On this last point the Russians have shown themselves to be the most entrepenurial of space faring nations. They could negotiate a barter arrangement to fly more tourists to the ISS offering a HM as a bargaining chip. This would go a long way to dispel the ‘White Elephant’ tag that the ISS has among wide sections of the community.   That’s about all I want to say on this matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ISS Habitation Module?

MarkStanaway

Guest

Cygnus_X_1

Guest

JimL

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

cosmictraveler

Guest

aphh

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

ThereIWas2

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

ThereIWas2

Guest

stackhouse

Guest

Zipi

Guest

stackhouse

Guest

stackhouse

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

nibb31

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page