Leave shuttle attached to ISS?

[gunsandrockets]

< I don't think the difficulty lies in getting ISS to orbit the moon. The moon has no atmosphere to drag it down and once properly placed in lunar orbit, the ISS would orbit for a very long time.><br /><br />That sounds like the problem is referring to the stability of a low-lunar-orbit (LLO) such as the one Apollo used. As I understand it LLO is unstable and therefore an object in LLO will eventually hit the moon. The problem is the weird mass concentrations (masscons) in the lunar surface which make the gravity gradients of the moon 'lumpy'.<br /><br />Now if a space-station is placed into a high-lunar-orbit, or at least a highly eccentric orbit with a high apoapsis, than long term stability of the orbit is probably not going to be a problem.<br /><br />

 

[corbarrad]

While it may or may be possible to adapt this or that existing hardware for a lunar mission it would be akin to fitting a car with pontoons and an outboard motor and then go crossing the Atlantic with it. It's possible, alright, but a reasonably sized boat will be both safer and more cost efficient.<br /><br />Most, if not all space Hardware is built with a single purpose in mind. <br />The Shuttle was built to go into LEO for a limited amount of time and returning safely. Reworking its power and life support systems for indefinite stays would require more resources than custom building a hab module.<br />As for Zarya to the moon: Even the short clip kyle_baron posted from the wikipedia article states that Zarya still has a use on ISS. So unless you want to break off the ongoing science on ISS and cannibalize it for a moon mission you'd have to wait for the end of the operational life of ISS and Zarya is older than most of the other modules up there.<br /><br />"Recycling in space" sounds like a good idea until you get into the details.

 

[qso1]

gunsandrockets:<br />That sounds like the problem is referring to the stability of a low-lunar-orbit (LLO)...<br /><br />Me:<br />If thats what he meant, I agree with what your saying, just put the lunar orbiting lab in a higher orbit. <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

You would of course want to have some abilty to raise and adust your orbit anyway, but in a real low orbit it would require more effort, and expenditure of propellant. ( <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s_g) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Now if a space-station is placed into a high-lunar-orbit, or at least a highly eccentric orbit with a high apoapsis, than long term stability of the orbit is probably not going to be a problem. </font><br /><br />Exactamundo. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />While it may or may be possible to adapt this or that existing hardware for a lunar mission it would be akin to fitting a car with pontoons and an outboard motor and then go crossing the Atlantic with it. It's possible, alright, but a reasonably sized boat will be both safer and more cost efficient. </font><br /><br />Poor example. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />"Recycling in space" sounds like a good idea until you get into the details. </font><br /><br />Alright then, how would a lunar orbiting module, differ from Zarya?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />You would of course want to have some abilty to raise and adust your orbit anyway, but in a real low orbit it would require more effort, and expenditure of propellant. </font><br /><br />Since Zarya was designed to boost the ISS in Earth orbit, I don't see much problem boosting it from the 1/6 gravity well of the moon, if needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Yes, propellant </font><br /><br />Are you and MW implying that Zarya is out of gas? Then fill-er up from the shuttle, and send her on her way. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not at all.<br /><br />It's just the correct term for the fuel and oxidizer that both must be carried to create thrust <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Alright then, how would a lunar orbiting module, differ from Zarya? </i><br /><br />Assuming a similar functioning unit, an "FGB" for high lunar orbit, Zarya is missing: radiation storm shelter, US Common Berthing Mechanism, large storage tanks, lunar-adapter software/navigation, possibly structural issues. It could also use a robotic arm, Strela or Canadarm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br /> for high lunar orbit, Zarya is missing: radiation storm shelter, US Common Berthing Mechanism, large storage tanks, lunar-adapter software/navigation, possibly structural issues. It could also use a robotic arm</font><br /><br />So, how much would these modifications to Zarya cost? Since a new module costs $200 million if built in Russia, or $400 million if it's built in the U.S. Probably, some of the modification parts would have to come from both countries. I'm thinking, that if the cost is between $20-$100 million (1/10-1/4) the price of a new module, that NASA would consider this extra layer of safety, for a lunar safehouse/supply module.<br /><br />This lunar module would be versatile, since it could protect the astronauts from an Apollo 13 catastrophy, while the module is in high lunar orbit. Or the module could be lowered (in orbit) for the lunar base astronauts, blasting off from the surface. I see it as double coverage, or a second layer of safety, at a modest cost. And we all know, that there will be catastrophies with this new lunar technology (Murphy's Law). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

MeteorWayne:<br />but in a real low orbit it would require more effort, and expenditure of propellant.<br /><br />Me:<br />Exactly. Place any orbiter orbiting the moon in a higher orbit and one that requires the least amount of adjustment propulsion burns. <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>

 

[j05h]

Zarya is a permanent part of ISS, the "spine" of the station. I doubt it could be extracted in one piece. These kind of changes need to be done on the ground. If the goal was to put a Russian-type baseblock in lunar orbit, it'd be much smarter to kit out the DOS9 core for the task. This is the backup core that is still on the ground. <br /><br />The storm shelter and tankage would most likely be an additional module. The CBMs would at least be added on the forward node, at least one z-axis hatch, and that require cutting and welding. Software is an unknown issue, an arm could be sourced commercially or by govt. procurement. Last major issue is revising the baseblock so it can hold 6-12 months of supplies instead of just a 3 month supply (typical of Progress). The changes to DOS9 might be in the $100-500M range, not including launch, but that's a wild guess. <br /><br />An orbital shelter does make sense, as does an L1 transit station. The shelter would also need a tug for retrieving stranded capsules. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Zarya is a permanent part of ISS, the "spine" of the station. I doubt it could be extracted in one piece. </font><br /><br />Should be no problem, with the Shuttle's robot arm.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />The storm shelter and tankage would most likely be an additional module.</font><br /><br />Under ideal conditions-yes. However, this is a bare-bones last resort safe-house, that may never be used. I see these as additional costs.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />The CBMs would at least be added on the forward node, at least one z-axis hatch, and that require cutting and welding. </font><br /><br />The cutting and welding in outer space, would be an ideal training mission. How many astronauts know how to weld? Probably none. It is a skill that may need to be done, in an emergency, in the lunar outback.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding<br /><i><br />Many different energy sources can be used for welding, including a gas flame, an electric arc, a laser, an electron beam, friction, and ultrasound. While often an industrial process, welding can be done in many different environments, including open air, underwater and in space. </i><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_beam_welding<br /><i><br />Electron beam welding (EBW) is a fusion welding process in which a beam of high-velocity electrons is applied to the materials being joined. The workpieces melt as the kinetic energy of the electrons is transformed into heat upon impact, and the filler metal, if used, also melts to form part of the weld. Pressure is not applied, and a shielding gas is not used, though the welding is often done in conditions of a vacuum to prevent dispersion of the electron beam.As the electrons strike the workpiece, their energy is converted into heat, instantly vaporizing the met</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To shuttle_guy: Hypothetically speaking, if the shuttle had an extra external fuel tank, could it's engines have enough thrust to push the ISS out of Earth orbit and towards the moon, after an 8 minute burn? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Too high of thrust.&nbsp; The ISS couldn't take the loads&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I would say it would definitely be easier to leave a Spacelab like module with perhaps one or two pallets utilized for life support equipment such as O2 tanks etc in lunar orbit.In addition, something smaller might be easier to define as to its purpose. At the moment, AFAIK nobody has been able to identify a reasonable purpose for a manned lunar orbiting lab. The perfect candidate to boost to the moon, would be Zarya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya Zarya, also known as the Functional Cargo Block or the FGB, was the first module of the International Space Station to be launched. The FGB provided electrical power, storage, propulsion, and guidance to the ISS during the initial stage of assembly. As other modules with more specialized functionality are constructed, the Zarya's role will primarily be storage, both inside the pressurized section and in the externally mounted fuel tanks.It is owned and paid for by the United States and was built from December 1994 to January 1998 in Russia in the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (KhSC) in Moscow. Zarya has 16 external fuel tanks that can hold over 6 metric tons of propellant, with 24 large steering jets, 12 small steering jets, and two large engines for reboost and major orbital changes.Although only designed to fly autonomously for six to eight months, Zarya was required to fly autonomously for almost two years due to delays to the Russian Service Module, Zvezda. Hmmmm..... A module that is no longer really needed, can hold emergency fuel, is pressurized, and can fly autonomously for up to 2 years? Sounds like the perfect candidate to me! <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No it can't, it is only design for the LEO environment and its attitude control system relies on the earth's horizon for reference.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yes, propellant Are you and MW implying that Zarya is out of gas? Then fill-er up from the shuttle, and send her on her way. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Shuttle doesn't and can't refuel the Zarya&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Zarya is a permanent part of ISS, the "spine" of the station. I doubt it could be extracted in one piece. Should be no problem, with the Shuttle's robot arm. The storm shelter and tankage would most likely be an additional module. Under ideal conditions-yes. However, this is a bare-bones last resort safe-house, that may never be used. I see these as additional costs. The CBMs would at least be added on the forward node, at least one z-axis hatch, and that require cutting and welding. The cutting and welding in outer space, would be an ideal training mission. How many astronauts know how to weld? Probably none. It is a skill that may need to be done, in an emergency, in&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Arm has nothing to do with it. The arm can handle the loads of the rest of the ISS.&nbsp; The&nbsp; fgb can't extracted just as anyone's spine can't be.&nbsp; The ISS needs it, it is the core of the station.</p><p>&nbsp;Welding bulkheads in space at this time is not viable. &nbsp; No jigs to hold the pieces.</p><p>The station pieces can't be recycled for other missions that they are not designed for </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No it can't, it is only design for the LEO environment and its attitude control system relies on the earth's horizon for reference.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />Understood, the software would have to be lunar based, as discussed previously. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Shuttle doesn't and can't refuel the Zarya&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />Well then, remove the tanks, and replace them with newly refilled tanks.&nbsp; Come on, it can't be that difficult!&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If that's not possible, then Zarya should be used as a model, for a new lunar orbiting module prototype.&nbsp; The Orion CEV, is also going to be remotely controlled, IIRC.&nbsp; Having 2 unmanned remote controlled vehicles orbiting the moon, is better than 1.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Arm has nothing to do with it. The arm can handle the loads of the rest of the ISS.&nbsp; The&nbsp; fgb can't extracted just as anyone's spine can't be.&nbsp; The ISS needs it, it is the core of the station.&nbsp;Welding bulkheads in space at this time is not viable. &nbsp; No jigs to hold the pieces.The station pieces can't be recycled for other missions that they are not designed for <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />What is this talk about a spine?&nbsp; Nasa can leave Unity attached to the truss, with Columbus, and Harmony attached to the opposite side.</p><p>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/ISS_1E_Configuration.jpg</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is this talk about a spine?&nbsp; Nasa can leave Unity attached to the truss, with Columbus, and Harmony attached to the opposite </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;No, it will have no thrusters or reboost capability.&nbsp; The ISS won't have attitude control (no CMG desaturation) and also will soon burn up.</p><p>&nbsp;This is nonviable </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well then, remove the tanks, and replace them with newly refilled tanks.&nbsp; Come on, it can't be that difficult!&nbsp; &nbsp;If that's not possible, then Zarya should be used as a model, for a new lunar orbiting module prototype.&nbsp; The Orion CEV, is also going to be remotely controlled, IIRC.&nbsp; Having 2 unmanned remote controlled vehicles orbiting the moon, is better than 1. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is non viable too.&nbsp; It is that difficult. The tanks can't be removed.&nbsp; It is not a plug and play spacecraft.&nbsp; The tanks are refueled by progress spacecraft and not the shuttle </p><p>&nbsp;Zarya is not a good model for a lunar spacecraft.Spacecraft are not Legos.&nbsp; They are purpose built and Zarya is for LEO<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Understood, the software would have to be lunar based, as discussed previously. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;You don't understand, it is not a software issue.&nbsp; It is hardware.&nbsp; The attitude control system hardware relies on the earth's horizon for reference.&nbsp; There are no star trackers.&nbsp; The thermal system is for LEO and not lunar.&nbsp; I could go on </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, it will have no thrusters or reboost capability.&nbsp; The ISS won't have attitude control (no CMG desaturation) and also will soon burn up.&nbsp;This is nonviable <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />Durring the last mission, the SHUTTLE boosted the ISS to a higher orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>