ISS 'to be completed as planned

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kane007

Guest
Not entirely as planned - missing the Russian Power Platform (until possibly 2015).<br />And still no US Habitation module.<br /><br />But almost the full station, so that has to be seen as good news.<br />
 
T

twocanntwo

Guest
whats this about the missing Russian power platform?<br />nothing was said in the artical about a 2015 date,how come.
 
K

kane007

Guest
Deduction on my part from "Among the agreements made, NASA and Roskosmos reached a deal in which NASA relinquished responsibility for flying the Russian module to the station. As compensation, NASA will provide sufficient power for the module until 2015." SpaceDaily article. <br /><br />So this could mean after 2015 the Russians may orbit a power module themselves. But its all supposition.<br />
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
"Deduction on my part from "Among the agreements made, NASA and Roskosmos reached a deal in which NASA relinquished responsibility for flying the Russian module to the station. As compensation, NASA will provide sufficient power for the module until 2015." SpaceDaily article. <br /><br />So this could mean after 2015 the Russians may orbit a power module themselves. But its all supposition. "<br /><br />As of now, there is no 'after 2015' for the ISS. NASA wants to pull out of the project in 2016 and I doubt that anyone else will be able to maintain it without NASA's involvement.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Very true! I see where spacex wants to build the new "Dragon" module to be launched on the future Falcon 9 launch system. If spacex can truly reduce the costs of such systems (while retaining the all important safety and reliability) then the relatively cash strapped programs of our partners should be able to afford to keep the station orbiting for many years to come after 2015.<br /><br />As for the habitation module, if Bigelow is successful, then I am certain (perhaps even for just the advertising, "Stay at a Bigelow Space Hotel, the same as used on the ISS!") that something will be worked out. Think of how many more space tourists could be accommodated as well. In at least this case we seem to have inspired some very pure capitalism in our former Communist adversaries. I don't think that they are just going to want to throw that away!!<br />
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"The US commercial sector and the other ISS partners can maintain the ISS IF NASA pulls out. "<br /><br />I have to disagree with you here. There really is no how to manual (don't get me startedm documentation and such are a sad story in station) so the only way you will be able to pull this off is to 1a) pay NASA to run it or 1b) pay NASA to develop/train folks to run it. I doub the IPs will do that since they have trouble funding what they are doing. Maybe private enterprise but I suspeect when they see the cost it won't happen. I may be wrong but I just don't see how that can happen. I think the exact same thing will happen as with Mir - frantic attemtps, discussion and then reality. I hope I am wrong but I won't put my money on it.
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
I doubt the private sector would do it without some major incentives. NASA probably guarantees a profit. Foreign agencies wanting to redirect the business to home soil probably will think otherwise.<br /><br />Perhaps if the private companies could sell space to manufacturers hoping production would be cheaper and more effective in space... Personally, I doubt it. From what I heard, what caused the experiments about chip production in space to end was that it cost to much to orbit the raw materials and then bring the product back.<br /><br />Hotels are another matter, but I recently saw someone else in another thread comment that a hotel as part of the same structure as that used by experiments might destroy the experiment results. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
Yes, yes, finish the project and get down to business. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
I think the negativist scientific types need to start to think out of the box here. Bigelow's ideas for inflatable habitations for hotels would NOT have to be directly attached to the ISS itself. Also, with six or seven people on the ISS itself, I would believe that controlled visits by tourists living in such habitats would not have to be interruptive of the work itself.<br /><br />With this, space tourism to the ISS could indeed become a profitable enterprise. Especially, with our former Communistic opponents learning to be capitalists with the kind of gusto that they have already shown!<br /><br />Also, the problem with obtaining the necessary raw materials for the manufacturing of such items as computer chips in space (whether on the ISS, or elsewhere) will eventually be solved by using the almost limitless resources of space itself, starting with the moon.<br /><br />Did you know that one of the major components of the moon materials brought back by the Apollo astronauts was silicon? And silicon is one for the most important materials around in the manufacture of electronic components. While going back to the moon for further exploration (how many astronauts have landed on the far side of the moon?) is important it ISN’T the greatest reason for going back! The greatest reason is to EXPLOIT the resources of the nearest large natural space station to the Earth: the moon!<br />This is why it is vital to go back to the moon first, before mankind goes out further into the solar system!<br />
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
Coming technology such as a commercially produced vasimr (my bets are it could fly in the next 5 years) would allow for much easier maintenace of orbit of the station. espically considering the fuel (h2) is dumped overboard by the Oxygen generators. <br /><br />Secondly it would cost a bunch of money to deorbit the station. It is too large to just let it fall out of the sky meaning we would have to send a booster up to bring it in on the correct trajectory for it to miss land. I know that 75% of the earth is water, but in a safety concious goverments it is important not to have the station land on anyone.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">The US commercial sector and the other ISS partners can maintain the ISS IF NASA pulls out.</font>/i><br /><br />ISS will need to prove itself valuable first. Over the years there have been a lot of commercial ideas mentioned (e.g., turbine blades for jets, pharmaceutical products, etc.), and if basic science is valuable enough that NSF would be willing to fund it, part of the budget for an NSF grant could include the overhead paid for the use of ISS.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, there are interesting scientific discoveries made on othe Moon over the next decade by orbiters, landers, and rovers, governments and the scientific community may shift their priorities to the Moon and away from ISS.<br /><br />Time will tell...</i>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
ISS could serve as a waystation for moon bound travelers. Remember, in <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i>, Heywood Floyd had to switch from an Earth to space vehicle to a space to moon vehicle. You have to make the switch somewhere without direct ascent. (That was a pre-Apollo plan where the entire return vehicle landed on the Moon.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Yep, that is basically what I am saying, perhaps Bigelow could give NASA a discount for the ad value?
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"Secondly it would cost a bunch of money to deorbit the station. It is too large to just let it fall out of the sky meaning we would have to send a booster up to bring it in on the correct trajectory for it to miss land."<br /><br />Already have one and it is not that expensive. It is called Progress.
 
K

kane007

Guest
Unfortunetely the ISS is in a c**p orbit. The inclination is too high and the lunar explorers would have to sacrifice a huge amount of fuel and cargo just to reach the ISS as compared to a lower inclination insertation/transfer.<br /><br />Read $$$!
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
I think many people here missunderstand what it means to 'run a spacestation' in terms of costs. I have absolutely no doubt that by 2015 either the Russians or the Europeans or the private sector could fully supply a crew of six on the ISS and provide crew transporters for 6-month rotations. HOWEVER, to actually keep the ISS savely maintained up in orbit, so that people can work on it, that won't happen because nobody except NASA has the human resources and the budget to do so.<br /><br />And to put all that in numbers, supply and crew support by Soyuz and Progress at the moment totals per year<br />~200 million dollars<br />'running the ISS', on the other hand, that is all things from EVA-support to fix failures of the icemachine (excluding Shuttle operations, Soyuz etc.) totals<br />~2 billion dollars for NASA alone.<br /><br />Therefore, even if spacex and co come up with a reuseable crew capsule and unmanned carriers, no private company will still be able to finance all the other costs that are associated with the ISS per year.<br /><br />Therefore, without NASA post 2015, no ISS. Trust me on that.
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
Don't forget virtually everything is run from the ground - so you need a full team to run Mission Control and the ground networks. Again, why it won' tjust be sold/given/leased to other parties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS