ISS Habitation Module?

[wubblie]

<p>Basically, the situation is as follows.</p><p>The US is going back to the moon (or better yet, mars). Any funds spent on a hab for the ISS would be better spent on a hab for the moon or mars. So, the US is not going to have anything to do with an ISS hab.&nbsp;</p><p>The Russians want to go to the moon, so they are not going to spend the money on an new hab either. </p><p>So that leaves ESA and JAXA. Both want to have a manned presence in space, but neither is willing to spend the amount of money required to do so. </p><p>So a new hab is not going to happen. I think the best scenario is what is currently taking place. NASA needs to abandon the ISS, because as long as we are supporting it, ESA and JAXA will not 'man up' and start spending what is required to have independent manned programs. &nbsp;</p><p>Instead, we should try to get on a terrestrial body, which will allow astronauts to 'live off the land' (grow their own food rather that having it launched up, will not require reboosting, and can be left alone and then reused without burning up in the atmosphere).&nbsp; Maybe someday, when launch costs are lower, we can come back and make a proper space station. Hopefully, ESA, JAXA, Canada, and Russia will be able to keep the ISS going till then. But if not, so much the worse. Earth orbit is just the harbor, and the US is ready to start voyaging out. Russia should try for the moon, and everyone else should work on the ISS until they are ready to move outward.&nbsp;</p><p>Why send a hab to the ISS when it will eventually just burn up? Send it to the moon, where it will stay put and last longer. Where is the MIR now, where is skylab- they burned up. If these bases were put on the moon, they would still be available.&nbsp; </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> </p><p>1. A &lsquo;time out&rsquo; area for ISS crews &middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; A sound proofed area for crews during their rest periods &middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>3.&nbsp; Enhanced radiation protection for crews during their rest periods &middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>4.&nbsp; An opportunity for a new partner or private enterprise to participate in the ISS &middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>5.&nbsp; Experience from the construction and operation of a HM will have application for post ISS operations</p><p>6. It will provide international standard accommodation to match the investment in this international research facility. Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; That's what Node 3 and their personal quarters are for</p><p>2.&nbsp; The personal quarters are heavily soundproofed.</p><p>3.&nbsp; Was never a task of the hab module.&nbsp; It had the same level of protection as the other modules.&nbsp; Also this is a LEO spacecraft and it is not needed. Extra radiation protection is needed outside of earth orbit</p><p>4.&nbsp; No one is going to sink money for a object that is not needed and has little return on investment</p><p>5.&nbsp; Not valid.&nbsp; It wouldn't provide anymore knowledge than the existing modules.&nbsp; A hab module would be a studio apt, where everything is done in one room.&nbsp; The whole ISS is a multi room house. &nbsp; It has bedrooms (node 2 and SM), dining rooms (SM and Lab) , exercise room (node 3), bathrooms (SM and Node 3)</p><p>6,&nbsp; That is just a bunch of hooey, "international standard accommodation".&nbsp;&nbsp; No need to spend 100 of millions for that.&nbsp; the ISS is an outpost and&nbsp; luxury is not a requirement.&nbsp; The current ISS provides more than adequate accomedations for the crew.&nbsp; Better than what is given to submariners, underwater habitats, and ship crews.&nbsp; </p>

 

[aaron38]

<p>I read through the thread, and I understand the arguments that ISS is a research platform, that there's enough room for bunks and that the hab module isn't strictly needed.</p><p>But then I saw the article yesterday that Jules Verne is going to remain docked for longer because the astronauts are using it as a hab module.&nbsp; http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080624-iss-julesverne-extension.html</p><p>It seems to me that if you add space to the ISS and the astronauts immediately take it over as a hab module, that pretty clearly showcases, if not an absolute need for one, then at least a very strong desire for one.&nbsp; And it seems the space will be sorely missed when the ATV undocks.&nbsp; So the question I have is, how much will the addition of Node 3 alieviate the need for the additional space in the ATV?&nbsp; And if a 3 person crew is eagarly using the extra space, then wouldn't a&nbsp;6 person crew with Node 3 be in the same postion?</p><p>&nbsp;If they're extending the ATV mission, could they schedule the ATV launches such that 90% of the time there's an ATV docked at the station, there by getting a hab module for free?</p>

 

[erioladastra]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But then I saw the article yesterday that Jules Verne is going to remain docked for longer because the astronauts are using it as a hab module.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not correct.&nbsp; The reason to extend ATV is that it has plenty of prop and can be used for attitude control (and is preferred over SM since it has less impact on the solar arrays).&nbsp; The crew is just taking advantage of it for hygiene and sleeping.</p>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not correct.&nbsp; The reason to extend ATV is that it has plenty of prop and can be used for attitude control (and is preferred over SM since it has less impact on the solar arrays).&nbsp; The crew is just taking advantage of it for hygiene and sleeping. <br /> Posted by erioladastra</DIV></p><p>Yeah the primary reason is to make use of the extra fuel it did not need for docking and demo maneuvers.&nbsp; The "hab module" use is an icing on the cake.&nbsp; I think its more like put your sleeping bag in there because you can and its quiet and big.&nbsp; Not to mention private.&nbsp; Kinda like a make shift master bedroom in a mansion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If they're extending the ATV mission, could they schedule the ATV launches such that 90% of the time there's an ATV docked at the station, there by getting a hab module for free? <br /> Posted by aaron38</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well that would depend on the scheduling of that rear dock port.&nbsp; ATV can only dock there (as far as I understand it), but progress and soyuz can also dock there.&nbsp; Otherwise,why not?&nbsp; ATV has solar arrays so its time could be flexible.</p><p>The only other problem is that ATV will also store trash to be burned in atmosphere.&nbsp; So when that is full, it might not be nice to sleep in. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Green_man]

<p>[As the British ponder their role in the development, they'd do well to remember that, like the Age of Exploration accross the Atlantic and Antarctica, a "window of opportunity" only exists for a period of time.&nbsp; Anyone who has watched feeds on NASA TV can see that the space station has no single area that is "home" like or relating to a standard comforts planetside.&nbsp; What is lacking is precisely what is being suggested by the British Interplanetary&nbsp;Society.&nbsp; Not only would habitation quarters help to "meld" crews which still think of the station as the&nbsp; "Russian or American or Japanese" sections, it would also provide valuable data about how to integrate regular living experiences into what will inevitably be routine in another generation.&nbsp; Can we really&nbsp; envision a group of 6-10 men and women traveling to Marts without the creators of their craft/habitat knowing what earth-like ammenities seem like luxuries but are actually essential to the psychological and phsyiological well-being of its crew?&nbsp; Why wait for a 8-10 year "special" programme proposed, debated, killed and renewed when the study could be ongoing with the daily life aboard ISS?&nbsp; One only has to see how Orion/Ares/Constellation is becoming the dog's-body for one presidential candidate to know that waiting equals "maybe next decade."&nbsp; It's time to hear John Bull step onto the pitch and score for the world community.&nbsp; Build the crew quarters compartment and welcome to the team.&nbsp; We are only stronger when we speak in numbers.</p><p>QUOTE]As new modules are added to the ISS and it becomes a truly &lsquo;international&rsquo; 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 &lsquo;camp out&rsquo; 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 &lsquo;Spaceflight&rsquo; 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 &lsquo;staff room&rsquo; 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&rsquo;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!!! <br />Posted by MarkStanaway[/QUOTE]<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>