ISS Lite

radarredux · Sep 6, 2005

The JPG link below is one potential final ISS configuration assuming 16 more Shuttle flights. The red elements are the ones that are axed. Some of the elements eliminated include: SPM - Science Power Module Node 3 Cupola CAM - Centrifuge Accommodation Module http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/06.04.05.esas.iss.lrg.jpg http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17990

vt_hokie · Sep 6, 2005

Interesting. I had wondered about the possibility of eliminating solar arrays, since the power requirements will be less than originally envisioned. I see that they're looking at eliminating one of the large arrays. I assume that would mean having two arrays on the ends of the truss structures, and leaving one "on top" where it is now for the sake of symmetry, balanced solar torques, proper c.g. location, etc. It's a shame, though, that it won't be completed as originally intended. I have a question: Will it be possible to add the additional array at a later date, should construction ever continue down the road, or does adding Node 2 and the other modules prevent access to the array locations?

vt_hokie · Sep 6, 2005

Part of the problem is that no other nations have any decent heavy lift capability on par with that of the space shuttle. If Russia wasn't the only one of our international partners with its own manned launch capability and its own ability to launch station components, the project would be in much better shape. Relying on the U.S. space shuttle was obviously not a good thing. It's too bad that ESA and JAXA can't launch their modules themselves. I also think this is why the "VSE" is inherently flawed. It does not address launch costs sufficiently, and will not lead to new reusable launch vehicles or really any new technologies. We need to build the means of getting things to and from space more cheaply and reliably before we worry about doing more in space.

SpaceKiwi · Sep 6, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We need to build the means of getting things to and from space more cheaply and reliably before we worry about doing more in space.<hr /></blockquote> Agreed. We also need to improve the reliability of things built in space as well. Until all these issues are addressed, any manned Mars mission would be foolish in the extreme. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

radarredux · Sep 6, 2005

> The Cupula is gonna be scrapped? Huh, I thought it was already built, and ready to go?/i> Remember, this is not official, not for public release, and probably one of many ideas examined. Yes, according to the ESA site, the Cupola was officially transferred to NASA on July 7th. (ESA article) My guess: if it is eliminated then it was not considered critical to any major research or operations, and when NASA is trying to eliminate 12 of 28 shuttle flights, some stuff won't be flown. According to the ESA link above, "Under this agreement the [ESA] provides the Cupola in exchange for Shuttle transportation services for European equipment and experiments for the Station." Obviously, post Columbia, the VSE and the 2010 shuttle retirement, post Discovery delays, and now Griffin's apparent further reduction in flights, original agreements must be re-evaluated.

spacester · Sep 6, 2005

The Cuploa has Scientific Value. It very will may end up being the coolest part of the station to the general public. It will fly. Perhaps not on the Shuttle. Launch mass: 1805 kg SpaceX Falcon V: Manufacturer: SpaceX. LEO Payload: 4,200 kg. to: 200 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. Payload: 1,250 kg. to a: geosynchronous transfer orbit, 9 deg inclination trajectory <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

soccerguy789 · Sep 6, 2005

I'm an opponenet of the space station, I'll get that out of the way. well, sort of. I love the fact that we have the ISS, and i loved the concept, way back when it was only a few billion over budget (cause let's face it, space stuff goes over budget, are areospace engineers just optomistic or what?)now I believ that the ISS will be able to serve the new exploration initiative, and the more station, the better, but as much as I hate to see the retirement of the shuttle, it's going to happen, and the station is eating a huge chunk of the Space budget. a scalled down ISS is just what we need. it will do everything we will need it for (it's still bigger than Mir or Skylab) and it can be done. I like this a lot.

radarredux · Sep 7, 2005

> The Cuploa has Scientific Value./i> No one claimed it didn't have scientific value. What matters is relative scientific value (and many other factors I am sure).

spacester · Sep 7, 2005

And I didn't claim someone claimed it didn't <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> You are right of course, relative to other ISS equipment, the scientific value is low. I just wanted to preemptively address the erroneous notion that it has zero scientific value. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

askold · Sep 7, 2005

As far as NASA's concerned the ISS's value is to study the effects of long time in space to support long space missions. How much of the ISS needs to be done to accomplish that?

nacnud · Sep 7, 2005

The more the better. I'm worried about node 3. IIRC that is where some of the life support for a six person crew got relocated after the Hab was deleted and the larger the crew the more data points regarding long term exposure to space flight can be gather in a set time. I could be a false economy to delete too much. Perhaps if the modules are not fitted out on the ground with racks then each STS flight could carry more elements per launch. A new vehicle capable of delivering these racks would then be needed but one of those is needed anyway if full use of the ISS after the retirement of the STS.

CalliArcale · Sep 7, 2005

FYI, the Science Power Module (which I recall being called the Science Power Platform, but oh well) is actually a Russian component to provide additional power to their planned future laboratory modules. They have been having problems with schedule and budget slips on the SPP for years, so while it's sad to see it go, I'm not really shocked. NASA made one concession to help the SPP happen -- they agreed to carry it aloft in the Space Shuttle, which made the design much simpler and also cheaper. It is possible that the continued delays in the Shuttle program since STS-107 have been the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the SPP was concerned. Plus, if Russia doesn't get any more modules delivered, they won't need it anyway. Addendum: the Cupola is a US module, and it is nearing completion, but it was actually removed from the definition of "core complete" prior to STS-107, making it unlikely it would ever be installed on the station. It's not the only module to have had that happen. The CRV had considerable work done on it before it was unceremonially scrapped by the "core complete" thing. Yet some contracts had been made, so parts continued to roll in. Cancelling a component doesn't always stop work on it; it depends on what's already been paid for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

radarredux · Sep 7, 2005

> As far as NASA's concerned the ISS's value is to study the effects of long time in space to support long space missions. How much of the ISS needs to be done to accomplish that?/i> I read about a year ago that NASA was looking for the right numbers -- number of people, time on station per person, type of people, etc. -- to come up with some statistically sound results. I don't know if any estimates have been delivered as I believe the organization doing this has been disbanded. Certainly human expertiments have already been carried out (mainly Russia (Salyuts, MIR, ISS), but Americans also (Skylab, Shuttle missions, ISS)). I am not certain whether someone has collected the cummulative knowledge from these experiences and determine what quantity and quality of data beyond this existing knowledge will be collected on ISS.

cdr6 · Sep 7, 2005

I know what you mean, I'm not a fan of ISS either. We have a;ways had a space station (it's called the moon) all we've had to do was man it. In it's original form under the Regan admin. it was a smaller unit supposedly to be use for assembly of space craft in orbit etc. and "some" research. So I said this is good we can work there, plus it's only a short leap of faith to a hotel in orbit... well so much for that. (sigh) Now it's gotten silly...so down sizing may be a good thing.

vt_hokie · Sep 8, 2005

Why did Europe and Japan choose to have all of their components launched by the U.S. space shuttle? Even 20 years ago, it had to be obvious that expendables like the Russian Proton were cheaper and more reliable than our piece of crap "Space Transportation System", which has all but succeeded in killing our manned space program.

nacnud · Sep 8, 2005

Because the US persuaded them to. There are a lot of complex relationships and trading behind the ISS I tend to think that the US underestimated the cost of the STS system during this process. This is just my opinion but I'll try and look into it.

erioladastra · Sep 8, 2005

The Cupola does not have really any scientific value. No science is or was planned with it. It would only provide windows for robotic operations or similar logisitics - which may not even be that useful if the ISS is scaled back. We have dones some amazing stuff with the robotics using cameras and I am not aware of any operation that absolutely requires the cupola.

vt_hokie · Sep 8, 2005

Regardless of scientific value, it sucks to have all this completed hardware that may never be used!

lampblack · Sep 10, 2005

The Cupola was going to be sort of like the ornament on top of a Christmas tree. It was going to be a wee bit of beautiful Italian art there amongst the wires and cables. It would have had limited scientific value, for sure. But it would have been a sort of chapel in the sky -- a quiet place that might have done wonders for astronauts' quality of life. It would have been a reminder that human space travel doesn't have to be ALL about science return. It's a shame it won't fly. Of course, if Bigelow's hotels ever make it into orbit... maybe he could acquire the Cupola from the government and incorporate it into one of his designs. He could probably get it pretty cheap, given that there's no other use for it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

SpaceKiwi · Sep 10, 2005

I wouldn't write Cupola off just yet. Working on the '3-month MER' concept, where there's a will there could be a way. It does appear a relatively small module, so they might be able to squeeze it into the payload bay somehow. Although it was scheduled to be attached to Node 3, they could just use the spare Port freed up by the non-arrival of that Node. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

erioladastra · Sep 11, 2005

"It would have had limited scientific value, for sure. But it would have been a sort of chapel in the sky -- a quiet place that might have done wonders for astronauts' quality of life." Debatable - it will be so packed with robotics computers and monitors it won't have much room and limited view, to say the least quiet.

CalliArcale · Sep 12, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Why did Europe and Japan choose to have all of their components launched by the U.S. space shuttle?<hr /></blockquote> Because it's vastly easier (and therefore cheaper). Vibration loads are less, dimensions are larger, you don't need a propulsion system, and you don't need any kind of automated docking system. Consider the differences in interior volume and transfer compartments between US and Russian modules to get an idea of the engineering problems involved in sticking something on a Proton. Given the state of the Shuttle program in the late 90s, I'd definitely have made the same choice. Don't forget, the cost of the launch vehicle is hardly your only concern. You also need to build the module. Putting it on an unmanned expendable launch vehicle will add considerable complexity and considerable payload mass to your module. You need to decide whether any savings in the launch price (if any) are worth that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

lampblack · Sep 12, 2005

Well... this link would suggest that the idea behind having a cupola of any sort entails creating a "pleasing combination of art and utility." Everything I've read regarding ISS's cupola suggests it would have served much the same kind of mixed purpose -- affording a relatively quiet place for the astronautes to go and spend quality time alone, in addition to its very practical "traffic control" function. http://www.denninger.com/whatisc.htm The notion is supported by one of the Europeans quoted in this space.com story: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/iss_cupola_040908.html The pertinent quote: While the Cupola is expected to be primarily use to keep tabs on spacewalking crews or control the station's robotic arm, ESA officials believe it could also serve a more personal purpose for ISS astronauts. "There are psychological elements," Isakeit said of the Cupola. "You can see the universe, you can see back down on Earth…so it can be used for ad hoc observation." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

erioladastra · Sep 12, 2005

Well it is the astronauts who have pushed to even have it - but it may ultimately be hard to justify so we will see what happens with the small number of launches remaining.

ISS Lite

radarredux

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacester

Guest

soccerguy789

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacester

Guest

askold

Guest

nacnud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

radarredux

Guest

cdr6

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

nacnud

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

lampblack

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

lampblack

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page