Positives of the ISS

[mi2again]

"I think NASA should be spilt into 2 entities one that I think NASA should be spilt into 2 entities one that creates the necessary infrastructure for a space fairing nations (like the Department of Transportation that creates the highways and the rules for the highways) and the other for scientific research."<br /><br />Wrong analogy and wrong task for NASA. DOT does not fund or build railroads, it does not build trains, cars, planes or trucks. Neither should NASA build launch vehicles, that is the job of the private sector. True, NASA should do research on enabling technologies but not whole launch systems. <br />As for the necessary infrastructure for a space fairing nations, that is the job of the FAA and spaceport operators. <br /><br />NASA just needs to find a commercial ride for its spacecraft, just like it just commercial planes and trucks

 

[qso1]

In the case of sending humans to the moon and mars, there is no commercial service. NASA will still be needed to develop the vehicles to do those jobs which is basically development of enabling technologies as you mentioned.<br /><br />The private sector is needed to develop low cost access to earth orbit and NASA can take advantage of that service once its available. Thats assuming the job can even be done successfully. <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>

 

[thereiwas]

Nobody but NASA can develop new vehicles?? There are probably people at Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc, who would argue that.

 

[docm]

Sure, if you want to wait forever to get it done in their typical fits & starts methodology. Look at Ares/Orion. They work like much of the US auto industry; partly due to politics but also because of good old fashioned top-down corporate inertia. The difference is that the auto industry is trying to change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mi2again]

"n the case of sending humans to the moon and mars, there is no commercial service. NASA will still be needed to develop the vehicles to do those jobs which is basically development of enabling technologies as you mentioned."<br /><br />Yes, there is. They are called EELV's. NASA can just contract for a launch service vs a vehicle. Let industry determine the best method

 

[halman]

RichAlex,<br /><br />"You aslo state that the costs of sending spacecraft directly to Moon and back would be too high w/o a space station. However, you do not show how adding a $200 billion station to the trip would make the trip any less expensive."<br /><br />I guess that I am probably dreaming, but I always thought that the model described by the science fiction writers in the 1950's would be more efficient, therefore less expensive, than the single launch-direct flight model. The space station would act as a base and a hanger for a space craft designed to fly repeatedly to the Moon and back, ferrying people and supplies to the Moon. Unmanned craft could launch components to be assembled on orbit, and supplies to be transshipped. After equipment and supplies have been shipped to the Moon, launch the exploration crew, and ferry them to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[thereiwas]

Yes, the technologies required to get from Earth surface to LEO, and back down again (really big rockets, thermal protection, L/D, duration of a couple days, etc), are quite a bit different from the technologies required to get from LEO to the moon and back (small rockets, long term durations, living space). Why build complicated big things that have to do both?

 

[larper]

How do you go from Lunar orbit back to LEO? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

If we were planning a permanent base on the moon, and needed to support it at an affordable cost, and planned to develop a practical fully reusable shuttle, and a reusable LEO-to-Moon vehicle, than a station in LEO would certainly be a reasonable approach, albeit in a more equatorial orbit. On the other hand, if we only want to fly a few moon landings , i.e. Apollo on steroids, and then abandon the idea as soon as we get bored with it, then it is cheaper to use throwaway rockets as in Apollo and launch everything for each mission directly from earth. Since that's what we're doing, I guess that's what we want.

 

[spacester]

There is a central issue in these kinds of architecture discussions that often gets missed, because it's an operational thing, not really architectural per se. But it shows up in the down-select when you compare architectures.<br /><br />The concept is that of "Assured Return".<br /><br />To a certain extent, what is being discussed here is the deployment of 'true spaceships' - vehicles which once deployed in space, stay in space. This is where the SF architectures of yore make sense in the real economic world.<br /><br />When NASA sends its people up there, being a gummint agency and thus taking maximum precaution at every turn, they require that at any point in their mission timeline that there be assured return. IOW that at any point, when things go wrong, you can hit the big red button and go home ASAP.<br /><br />True spaceships don't have wings or TPS, right?<br /><br />Assured Return requires wings and/or TPS, right?<br /><br />So any NASA architecture is going to eliminate true spaceships.<br /><br />The value of ISS as a staging point for departure on lunar trips is less than ideal because of the inclination, and the insistence on Assured Return removes it from consideration as a return destination as well.<br /><br />Private spaceflight will not be so limited. They can plan on bringing their people back from the moon to LEO, without the Earth/Moon vehicle needing to re-enter. They will be building the first true spacecraft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mi2again]

"1. The value of ISS as a staging point for departure on lunar trips is less than ideal because of the inclination, <br /><br />2. Private spaceflight will not be so limited. They can plan on bringing their people back from the moon to LEO, without the Earth/Moon vehicle needing to re-enter. "<br /><br />1. Incorrect. The inclination only reduces mass to orbit by less than 6 %. It is an idea staging point for going to the moon<br /><br />2 Incorrect. Private spaceflight will have assured return for many reasons<br />a. The propellant needed to enter LEO from lunar return is large<br />b. The phasing to rendezvous with something in LEO reduces the opportunities<br />c. There isn't anything in LEO for a lunar return vehicle to rendezvous with<br />d. Private spacecraft can't afford a LOC because lack of assure return

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">a. The propellant needed to enter LEO from lunar return is large</font><br /><br />And if a returning ship accepts a slower trip using a VASIMR flying a deceleration spiral orbit around Earth? VASIMR Mars insertion in reverse.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">b. The phasing to rendezvous with something in LEO reduces the opportunities</font><br /><br />IF there are more than a few stations in Earth orbit your opportunities increase, especially if one is in a for the purpose orbit.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">c. There isn't anything in LEO for a lunar return vehicle to rendezvous with</font><br /><br />Idem.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

On an unrelated subtopic; I think the current <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> solar panel repair mission is another positive of the ISS. How else are we to gain experince in fixing unforseen things in space. On an interplanetary or interstellar mission, there can be no repair parts or repair techs shipped to the work site.<br />This is valuable training for the future. <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>

 

[docm]

But it sure would be easier if someone had the foresight to install some bloody OFF switches.<br /><br />Reminds me of "Eve of Destruction" <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Now we can add, solar array repair in the extreme end of the space station as of today. <br /><br />Using the Shuttle's arm extension on Canadarm 2 was a great improv plan.<br /><br />NASA had to assess the risk of patching a solar panel with light on it, that is electrically live.<br /><br />To me the arms are becoming more and more essential in large space craft. And extensions to them is a newer development. I can only see the need for these systems to grow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

You can't install "off" switches on solar panels. When light hit's them, they generate electricity.<br /><br />It's their job <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>

 

[holmec]

That still sounds to me that Congress acted in the interest of politicians and 'notable' figures rather than the public.<br /><br />As I recall in 1972, a lot of people were disappointed when we stopped going. Of course that was in California.<br /><br />At that time there was virtually no public communications other than the telephone. I think public polls were not implemented as they are now, so I think they were limited. The public was at the mercy of the Congressmen they elected and they were busy lobbying and negotiating. And they had "Uncle Ivan" breathing down their throats (Vientman, Cold War, ICBM development).<br /><br />So I question that Congress had a pulse on public opinion back then.<br /> <br /><br />BTW thanks for the info. That era almost seems like the Dark Ages looking back on it now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't believe the space enthusiast community is a monolithic block, so I hope that is not what you are claiming. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Whoa! Nice statement. To support this point I think this forum is a good example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mi2again]

"IF there are more than a few stations in Earth orbit your opportunities increase, especially if one is in a for the purpose orbit. '<br /><br />Mutually exclusive. Multiple stations doesn't help when "you want to go to a specific one"<br /><br />Also again, requiring to rendezvous with any target in LEO is going to have limited opportunities.<br /><br />"More than a few stations" What Scifi movie is this? Bigelow's don't count and more than one real one is doubtful

 

[spacester]

mi2again, are you also jimfromnsf?<br /><br />I thought it was against the TOS to have two handles.<br /><br />WTF is going on here? I don't follow the sdc soap opera these days, what's the story here?<br /><br />Did jimfromnsf decide that his body of work here was not worthy of continuation? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Either that or its a clone... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You can't install "off" switches on solar panels. When light hit's them, they generate electricity.<br /><br />It's their job <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What you could do is design the panel in segments so you can take a segment out of the sun light (probably by flipping it to a back side which does not have solar cells on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Private spaceflight will not be so limited. They can plan on bringing their people back from the moon to LEO, without the Earth/Moon vehicle needing to re-enter. They will be building the first true spacecraft.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That would seem a long way off. Because you have to deal with getting rid of a lot of potential energy.<br /><br />I would expect private space to come up with new schemes and techniques to get to the moon. Perhaps a high earth orbit space station to split the difference.<br /><br />Or use aerobraking and take it up a notch by coupling it with ion electric thrusters (no not a Deep Space 1 type thruster, a simple cathode anode thruster that redirects the atmospheric particles) just as an example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How do you go from Lunar orbit back to LEO? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />With a lot of rocket fuel, or a long time aerobraking.<br /><br />But how about high earth orbit? Who says we have to operate in LEO? It might be more feasible to get from lunar orbit to high earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's adding a lot of things that can go wrong.<br /><br />Nothing like this should happen again as there is no planned retraction of any of the solar panels.<br /><br />Just think about what you are suggesting. Rotating joints that have to transmit electrical power on a flexible sheet. It's bad enough through the SARJ. And that's an obviously metallic joint.<br /><br />No thanx. This crisis is over, and should not reoccur.<br /><br />None of the other arrays will be retracted.. <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>