Leave shuttle attached to ISS?

[kyle_baron]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;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 &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 />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />Ok, the tanks are refueled by the Progress spacecraft, and not the shuttle.&nbsp; The ISS is a bunch of modular legos, with different functions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&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 <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />Question:&nbsp; Wouldn't the same thrusters be used in lunar orbit?&nbsp; Can't the attitude control system be modified for lunar orbit?&nbsp; And please do "go on." I do respect your knowledge, even if I disagree with your "can't do attitude". <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'>Question:&nbsp; Wouldn't the same thrusters be used in lunar orbit?&nbsp; Can't the attitude control system be modified for lunar orbit?&nbsp; And please do "go on." I do respect your knowledge, even if I disagree with your "can't do attitude". <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Disagree all you want, it doesn't change reality.&nbsp; It is not "can't do attitude" when things are not viable.&nbsp; Again, spacecraft are not LEGOs.&nbsp; <br /><br />A river barge is not used in the ocean.&nbsp; Just as the FGB is not used out of LEO </p><p>&nbsp;the attitude sensing system uses the earth's limb for attitude determination.&nbsp; It can figure out to be level with respect to the earth.&nbsp; It needs to be in LEO for this.&nbsp; It is almost like using a car compass in an airplane. &nbsp; The thermal control system is basically made for one side for face earth and the other for deep space and the sun.&nbsp; the comm system is only for&nbsp; LEO.&nbsp; </p><p>The thrusters are not an issue but its main thrusters can't take it out of LEO nor could they brake it in to lunar orbit.</p><p>A purpose built one would be better, which would only use the pressure vessel and change everything else. And a booster like Ares V or two launches of a smaller LV. &nbsp; But.... &nbsp;</p><p>there is no need for this in lunar orbit.&nbsp; It would complicate things more. &nbsp; It would be just as useless as a life boat in the Pacific for a boat in the Altantic.&nbsp; If it is not in an orbit near the CEV, it is useless.&nbsp; It would constrain the mission to much to rendezvous with the FGB and the landing site.&nbsp; If you don't understand orbital mechanics then either way it is not worth going further. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><em> Zarya is a permanent part of ISS, the "spine" of the station. I doubt it could be extracted in one piece.</em>&nbsp;</p><p>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. </p><p>&nbsp;<em>The CBMs would at least be added on the forward node, at least one z-axis hatch, and that require cutting and welding. </em></p><p>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 /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>You are suggesting prying the Zarya off Station? It doesn't make sense, for all the reasons listed. </p><p>A tankage-shelter module could be as simple as an ATV or Progress surrounded by more tanks. It could easily be the first cargo craft to this mini-station.&nbsp; </p><p>Aerospace welding is best done on the ground - quality and material preservation issues are to great to&nbsp; do&nbsp; live in space. For Zarya or Zvezda, there is piping and wire on those hatches, so that means cutting all those lines, then reattaching them with a non-compatible docking mechanism. No matter how skilled at welding, any NASAetc astronaut is going to still be an amateur at it, compared to a guy in Decatur or Star City or a new welding robot. <br />AFAIK both soldering and welding have been tested in space, but the weld was only testing a single piece. This is hugely different from cutting out and APAS and attaching a CBM in space. The QA issues are enormous against modifying Zarya on-orbit and also applicable to the "build-rockets-on-the-Moon" meme. There is a needed local industrial base required to build/mod these kind of craft.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;The best way to make a storm shelter in lunar orbit is to build a dedicated craft on Earth and launch it to the desired orbit.&nbsp; The best thing is that there are existing and in-development solutions to this issue - one stack would be the Russian DOS-9 core (purchased and refitted for perhaps $300-500), a Bigelow BA330 (~$200M) and a SunDancer or other control block (unkn - $200m?). At least one of these control blocks is capable of detaching to rescue capsules. Throw in a couple refueled Centaurs at $?? and it's still going to be cheaper than hacking Zarya up live.&nbsp; </p><p>(glad to see forum back up!)</p><p>Josh</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p>

A purpose built one would be better, which would only use the pressure vessel and change everything else. And a booster like Ares V or two launches of a smaller LV. &nbsp; But.... &nbsp;there is no need for this in lunar orbit.&nbsp; It would complicate things more. &nbsp; It would be just as useless as a life boat in the Pacific for a boat in the Altantic.&nbsp; If it is not in an orbit near the CEV, it is useless.&nbsp; It would constrain the mission to much to rendezvous with the FGB and the landing site.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Not both.&nbsp; The CEV would be a rendevous with the FGB.&nbsp; Or, a rendevous could be done with the FGB and the upper stage of the Altair (from the surface of the moon).</p><p>

&nbsp;If you don't understand orbital mechanics then either way it is not worth going further.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>LOL.&nbsp; I don't need to know any detailed orbital mechanics (I'll leave that to NASA).&nbsp; Just knowing that an FGB that is designed to move the ISS in LEO would have no problem doing a major orbital change (or more than one) in the 1/6 lunar gravity well.</p><p>&nbsp;From an engineering standpoint, would it be asking to much for the FGB to be able to land on the moon, also?&nbsp; Obviously,&nbsp; it would use up all it's propellant, and it would be a one time shot.&nbsp; But, it could provide 4 astronauts with food, water, and air for 6 months, if stranded on the lunar surface, after a 2 week mission.</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'>1.&nbsp; Not both.&nbsp; The CEV would be a rendevous with the FGB.&nbsp; Or, a rendevous could be done with the FGB and the upper stage of the Altair (from the surface of the moon).</p><p>2.&nbsp; Just knowing that an FGB that is designed to move the ISS in LEO would have no problem doing a major orbital change (or more than one) in the 1/6 lunar gravity well.</p><p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; From an engineering standpoint, would it be asking to much for the FGB to be able to land on the moon, also?&nbsp; Obviously,&nbsp; it would use up all it's propellant, and it would be a one time shot.&nbsp; Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; You don't understand, "or" can't be done at the same time.&nbsp; To be a backup to the CEV, the FGB must be in the same&nbsp; orbit&nbsp; and that needs to done at LSAM and CEV launch to the moon.</p><p>2.&nbsp; A.&nbsp; the FGB doesn't provide propulsion to the ISS.&nbsp; It is only a propellant storage.&nbsp; The&nbsp; SM, progress and ATV provide the propulsion.&nbsp; The FGB only did it when it was with Node 1 before the SM. Moving the ISS in LEO means nothing.&nbsp; A one pound thruster can move the ISS.&nbsp; The SM only has 2 600lb thrusters that boost the ISS. </p><p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp;&nbsp; No,&nbsp; it is not a lego piece. It would be like "can a&nbsp; KC-135 land at a boat dock".&nbsp; the FGB only has 2 800lbs thrusters, no landing gear and no lunar navigation capability.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p>

&nbsp;1.&nbsp; You don't understand, "or" can't be done at the same time.&nbsp; To be a backup to the CEV, the FGB must be in the same&nbsp; orbit&nbsp; and that needs to done at LSAM and CEV launch to the moon.</p><p>&nbsp;Why couldn't the CEV take the same orbit as the FGB around the moon, passing over the south pole lunar base, each time a mission launches from Earth?</p><p><br /><br />&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'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; You don't understand, "or" can't be done at the same time.&nbsp; To be a backup to the CEV, the FGB must be in the same&nbsp; orbit&nbsp; and that needs to done at LSAM and CEV launch to the moon.&nbsp;Why couldn't the CEV take the same orbit as the FGB around the moon, passing over the south pole lunar base, each time a mission launches from Earth?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;The base is after 6-10 sortie flights.&nbsp; But anyways, the FGB is not a good living module, the SM/MIR core would be better. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The base is after 6-10 sortie flights.&nbsp; But anyways, the FGB is not a good living module, the SM/MIR core would be better. <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV></p><p><strong><font size="2">IMO, If Nasa launches these sortie flights with out a back up lunar orbiting module, it would be a disaster.&nbsp; The unmanned, remote controlled CEV, orbiting the moon, would have to operate flawlessly each&nbsp; time.&nbsp; If it doesn't operate flawlessly, the entire (4 astronaut) mission would be lost.</font></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">OTOH, If they left 1 man in the CEV (like Apollo) he could at least (jerry-rig) a possible solution to any anticipated problems, that might come up.</font></strong></p><p><br /></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'>Durring the last mission, the SHUTTLE boosted the ISS to a higher orbit. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>That was because shuttle as extra propellant. &nbsp; The ISS needs more reboosts per year than there are shuttle flights.&nbsp; Also the shuttle is gone after 2010.&nbsp; That's why I didn't include it </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO, If Nasa launches these sortie flights with out a back up lunar orbiting module, it would be a disaster.&nbsp; The unmanned, remote controlled CEV, orbiting the moon, would have to operate flawlessly each&nbsp; time.&nbsp; If it doesn't operate flawlessly, the entire (4 astronaut) mission would be lost.OTOH, If they left 1 man in the CEV (like Apollo) he could at least (jerry-rig) a possible solution to any anticipated problems, that might come up. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;They didn't need one for Apollo and don't need one for Constellation. &nbsp;</p><p>"The unmanned, remote controlled CEV, orbiting the moon, would have to operate flawlessly each&nbsp; time"&nbsp; which is no different than every other unmanned spacecraft.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;The MER rovers are doing fine, so is MRO, Odyssey, Cassini,&nbsp; New Horizons,&nbsp; Deep impact, Aura, Aqua,&nbsp; etc</p><p>&nbsp;Therefore, there is no need for it to be manned </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;They didn't need one for Apollo and don't need one for Constellation.&nbsp;&nbsp;The MER rovers are doing fine, so is MRO, Odyssey, Cassini,&nbsp; New Horizons,&nbsp; Deep impact, Aura, Aqua,&nbsp; etc&nbsp;Therefore, there is no need for it to be manned <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Ok, would you fly on a jet from New York&nbsp; to Los Angeles, which was remote controlled, and unpiloted (running on auto pilot)?&nbsp; Of course not.</strong><br /></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'>&nbsp;Ok, would you fly on a jet from New York&nbsp; to Los Angeles, which was remote controlled, and unpiloted (running on auto pilot)?&nbsp; Of course not. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Current aircraft basically fly on autopilot anyway. And, that will be happening within a decade. &nbsp; But your comparsion is invalid. &nbsp; Spacecraft are more advanced and their orbits are stable, no "flying" is needed.&nbsp; There is no neede to monitor systems from onboard, the ground can do it better. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You are trying to fix a non existent problem&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p>

&nbsp;&nbsp; But your comparsion is invalid. &nbsp; Spacecraft are more advanced and their orbits are stable, no "flying" is needed.&nbsp;There is no neede to monitor systems from onboard, the ground can do it better.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Yeah, we'll see if the ESA can fix the"propulsion glitch" in the recently launched, Jules Verne Cargo Ship.&nbsp; Since <font size="4">No one is on board</font><font size="1">, they will have to fix it from the ground.</font></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You are trying to fix a non existent problem&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>No, I was trying to make a point.&nbsp; IMO, human beings (astronauts) are more important than Mars Rovers.&nbsp; In your opinion, they're equally expendable. </strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Spending $1-1.5 Billion on a&nbsp; new lunar orbiting module, is a lot cheaper than losing 4 astronauts, and shutting down Nasa for a 1-2 yr. investigation.</strong></p><p><strong>Question:&nbsp; Did Nasa lose it's budget durring the investigations&nbsp; of the 2 shuttle explosions?&nbsp; Or, did that budget money go into a slush fund?</strong></p><p><br /></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'>.&nbsp;Yeah, we'll see if the ESA can fix the"propulsion glitch" in the recently launched, Jules Verne Cargo Ship.&nbsp; Since No one is on board, they will have to fix it from the ground. Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp; the ATV issue is not repairable by a onboard crew, so that is not valid point.&nbsp; Anyways, the ATV is not broke, it just has lost some redundacy.&nbsp; Actually the ATV issue proves my point. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Spending $1-1.5 Billion on a&nbsp; new lunar orbiting module, is a lot cheaper than losing 4 astronauts, and shutting down Nasa for a 1-2 yr. investigation.Question:&nbsp; Did Nasa lose it's budget durring the investigations&nbsp; of the 2 shuttle explosions?&nbsp; Or, did that budget money go into a slush fund? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>wrong all points.</p><p>1.&nbsp; NASA wasn't shut down.&nbsp; My group was still launching spacecraft</p><p>2.&nbsp; It wasn't a 1-2 years investigation.&nbsp; It was a standdown to fix the problem</p><p>3.&nbsp; NASA never "lost" its budget, it was used for the fixes </p><p>&nbsp;4.&nbsp; And most important point, an issue like Apollo 13 or a problem requiring the orbiting module would still cause a standdown</p><p>But this doesn't change the fact that:</p><p>1.&nbsp; "lunar orbiting module" is not solution, since there is no problem.&nbsp; Spacecraft are reliable.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; It is not a viable.&nbsp; It can't be in position to get the crew.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>