ISS to Mars?

[drwayne]

The idea of a "wet lab" is that one uses a spent stage as the basis for the station - in this case "wet" refers to the use of the stage that once contained fuel.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[turbopause]

Thanks for the information.<br />If I understand correctly the idea of using spent External Tanks would be considered a wet lab solution?

 

[drwayne]

That is correct.<br /><br />Note that even though Skylab was built around a SIVB, it was equipped on the ground as a station, and never functioned as a "stage", making it a "Dry Lab".<br /><br />My brain on the other hand, lacking brain "equipment" has frequently been referred to as a "Dry hole", borrowing from the oil exploration term referring to an area containing no useful materials.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

A Saturn V second stage as a lab would have been huge. I think one of the reasons we haven't done much in this area is that it may not be as economical as it appears on paper. Look how many private groups, companies have touted the ET as a station concept and have been for close to 20 years, yet no ET lab in sight. The primary cost problem being the one associated with actually outfitting a spent tank on orbit. Sounds simple enough but when all the variables are plugged in, the costs must have become prohibitive...just a theory on my part. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

This theoritician agrees.

 

[drwayne]

"A Saturn V second stage as a lab would have been huge."<br /><br />Yep, and they had it with them already, so they had it up there "for free", attached and everything. (Yes, it would have changed drag for sure)<br /><br />It would have been a good experiment in the technology, but Skylab was a (relatively) cheap experiment...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />If they wind up deorbiting these things without reusing them I am going to be upset.</font><br /><br />Me to. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Just think about the HUGE waste in energy expended, tax dollars, construction time (on the ground and in space), habital space, and useful technology. All this, waiting to sit at the bottom of the ocean. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"On a related point, I still get upset when I see them having to rearrange the pieces of the ISS every other month or so. Didn't these guys ever build a tinker toy? and so on. "<br /><br />Oh now come on! Lets see we moved PMA2 on 5A (2001), P6 on 10A, Node2+PMA2 during the stage. How the heck is that moving something every month or so? Pay attnetion to what is going on before making such statements. It was pictured from one end to the other and there are some ways to not have to do some of this stuff - like for example having TWO station arms. But the cost, even if we could afford it, would not have justified the minimal benefit. I don't think reusing a module is practical at all - they are fairly specialized, would be nearing the end of their design life and can't just be unattached and moved somewhere else. You would spend more money/time then just making a new one.

 

[h2ouniverse]

Why not use the decommissioned ISS as the counterweight of the Space Elevator? Then it will be "just" a matter of solving...er... allother technological challenges...<br />

 

[willpittenger]

If you are talking about a way to keep the elevator cable taut, you need something a wee bit higher. GEO orbit instead of LEO. You would also have to change the plane of the orbit (expensive by itself) to that of the equator. <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>

 

[usn_skwerl]

tie on another few solar panels, run an ion drive with them, it'll eventually get to GEO. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

And by then, we could have something else built in GEO orbit to do the job. <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>

 

[quasar2]

as has been pointed out on here before, & i was aware of it either. Lunar Orbit is extremely unstable. therefore any interaction w/ Luna would be necessarily EML1. & actually i`ve suggested similar concepts on here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>