Space Station Valuable Platform

[DarkenedOne]

Personally I believe that space stations offer valuable platforms for research, development, and training. They have proved to be valuable assets in space science particularly ones with involving micro gravity. They have also proven to be valuable development platforms for new space technologies, including new materials, life support systems, thrusters, and etc. Finally I think that they also serve as valuable training centers for astronauts. They are the only places were astronauts can get real life experience actually living and operating in space for significant periods of time. Such training and experience I believe is very important for future long duration missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

The problem with NASA's recent approach to space stations is that as usual they are simply to big and expensive to justify their cost thus they are not affordable. Let's face it the ISS may be a technical success, but it is a economic and political failure. At 100 billion dollars it is simply to expensive to be sustainable. As a result people have become adverse to the idea of building a replacement, and NASA has chosen to forgo any permanent outpost in space. In order for something to be sustainable it's benefits have to out way the costs.

I think NASA should extend the lifetime of the current ISS to 2020 and then plan on building another space station one that is smaller and affordable like the MIR. MIR only cost about 4.2 billion total for its 10 year of operation. I figure a modern version of MIR would cost less than a billion dollars a year to build and operate, thus leaving NASA plenty of money to continue with its other projects while maintaining the ability to research, develop, and train in space.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well that's fine, but if the money goes to another LEO space station, then we won't make it to the moon or Mars or anywhere else in ANY of our lifetimes!

 

[Woggles]

Well that's fine, but if the money goes to another LEO space station, then we won't make it to the moon or Mars or anywhere else in ANY of our lifetimes!

You can say that again!! lol!!

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, I will!!

Well that's fine, but if the money goes to another LEO space station, then we won't make it to the moon or Mars or anywhere else in ANY of our lifetimes!
:lol:

 

[DarkenedOne]

Well that's fine, but if the money goes to another LEO space station, then we won't make it to the moon or Mars or anywhere else in ANY of our lifetimes!

You can say that again!! lol!!

I honestly do not think that we will make it to Moon or Mars in any meaningful way. If NASA has trouble with maintaining the ISS in LEO than they have no hope of maintaining some sort of station on the moon.

NASA needs to think sustainable development.

 

[Couerl]

As a result people have become adverse to the idea of building a replacement, and NASA has chosen to forgo any permanent outpost in space. In order for something to be sustainable it's benefits have to out way the costs..

Well they do outweigh the costs, it's just that NASA doesn't capitalize on a monetary based ROI like private industry does. The development of the cordless drill (designed for use as a space tool) could have paid for a half dozen space missions alone, but it's Hitatchi and Makita and Home Depot who are getting all the revenue from their conception and design. We take for granted the payoff's for industry, medicine, tech and so forth that spring from space travel and research.

 

[DarkenedOne]

As a result people have become adverse to the idea of building a replacement, and NASA has chosen to forgo any permanent outpost in space. In order for something to be sustainable it's benefits have to out way the costs..

Well they do outweigh the costs, it's just that NASA doesn't capitalize on a monetary based ROI like private industry does. The development of the cordless drill (designed for use as a space tool) could have paid for a half dozen space missions alone, but it's Hitatchi and Makita and Home Depot who are getting all the revenue from their conception and design. We take for granted the payoff's for industry, medicine, tech and so forth that spring from space travel and research.

Maybe that is why the next one should be private.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Personally I believe that space stations offer valuable platforms for research, development, and training. They have proved to be valuable assets in space science particularly ones with involving micro gravity. They have also proven to be valuable development platforms for new space technologies, including new materials, life support systems, thrusters, and etc. Finally I think that they also serve as valuable training centers for astronauts. They are the only places were astronauts can get real life experience actually living and operating in space for significant periods of time. Such training and experience I believe is very important for future long duration missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond...

Can you give some examples of what research has been done on micro gravity on the ISS (besides eating a floating M&M)? They cancelled the Centrifuge Accommodations Module. Can you give some examples of new space technologies that have been developed on the ISS? Which new materials? What life support systems? They may very well make many of these types of science discoveries once they have a regular 6 person crew up there doing actual science, but I don’t think they have done much of anything so far (except keep the thing going). One good thing to come of the ISS is how multinational partners can work together, but not much science.

Look the ISS was a good idea, but it took over 20 years to build it. It’s still not finished and if one more accident happens (God forbid), it will never be finished. Bigelow can put up about as much space as the ISS in two flights!

We have learned one thing from the ISS, attaching space cans end on end is expensive and time consuming. But don’t worry the ISS will be extended because its political suicide to take 20 years to build something at an astronomical price and then de-orbit it after 5 years of operations, but as stated before if the ISS continues there will be no money left for heavy lift to outside of LEO with current budgets. You cannot eat your cake and have it too, something has got to give. I’m not saying we have learned everything there is to learn in LEO, but almost. Let’s get our butts out of LEO and go into deep space already.

We can learn just as much on a Moon base, and once you leave the Earth gravity well, the Moon is really not that much more work. But you can practice ISRU and a host of other things like nuclear power to get ready for Mars. If you want another space station in LEO get Bigelow to build it, not NASA, let NASA work on things like heavy lift to TLI, rovers, ISRU technology, and habitat construction etc…

 

[MeteorWayne]

"Bigelow can put up about as much space as the ISS in two flights!"

As much unoccupied space, which is a little different. In reality, they have launched two unmanned satellites. Whereas, the ISS has been continuously occupied for quite a few years now

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Sorry MW I was all emotional and stuff. I stand corrected.

Internal volume of ISS (once completed, including Russian side) is 1200 cm
Internal volume of BA 330 is (obviously) 330 cm

so 4 flights.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

By the way when Bluto said "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!", neither Otter or Boon stopped him because he was on a roll. I was on a roll man. :lol:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry MW I was all emotional and stuff. I stand corrected.

Internal volume of ISS (once completed, including Russian side) is 1200 cm
Internal volume of BA 330 is (obviously) 330 cm

so 4 flights.

No biggie, that wasn't really my point anyway. Bigelow has launched "space" craft, not occupied environments. IOW, they have launched space. It's much easier to launch objects that don't have humans occupying the space, once those pesky critters are aboard, they begin using consumables, needing large amounts of power, excreting things that have to be removed/recycled, etc. Launching a satellite is much easier than supporting a "building" that allows humans to live there.

While Bigelow may be able to do that in the future, they haven't proven that they can do so, since no living critters have been aboard.


Wayne

 

[Gravity_Ray]

True Dat...

But I was replying to OP about "another space station" presumably after the ISS. I just meant that instead of having NASA do another LEO space station after ISS that it should be left to somebody else for example Bigelow. I think Bigelow space can do a moderate size station for less than a Billion dollars a year. But obviously I am not with Bigelow and that is just a presumption.

I think NASA should extend the lifetime of the current ISS to 2020 and then plan on building another space station one that is smaller and affordable like the MIR. MIR only cost about 4.2 billion total for its 10 year of operation. I figure a modern version of MIR would cost less than a billion dollars a year to build and operate, thus leaving NASA plenty of money to continue with its other projects while maintaining the ability to research, develop, and train in space.

So NASA and this other entity will be starting from scratch. But point taken, NASA has a legendary track record and Bigelow does not.

Also dont mean to correct ya but...

While Bigelow may be able to do that in the future, they haven't proven that they can do so, since no living critters have been aboard.

Actually:

"On July 12, 2006, Bigelow Aerospace launched their Genesis I inflatable space module, containing many small items such as toys and simple experiments chosen by company employees that would be observed via camera. These items included insects, perhaps making it the first private flight to launch animals into space. Included were Madagascar hissing cockroaches and Mexican jumping beans — seeds containing live larvae of the moth Cydia deshaisiana. On June 28, 2007, Bigelow launched Genesis II, a near-twin to Genesis I. This spacecraft also carried the Madagascar hissing cockroaches and added South African flat rock scorpions (Hadogenes troglodytes) and seed-harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex californicus)."

But yeah.. :lol: None of them are comming back.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

One day I'll learn to use quotes on this site.
/sigh

 

[MeteorWayne]

Just FYI, the "[*quote]" in front doesn't have the slash, the "[*/quote]" at the end of the quote does

(remove the * to make it work)

Wayne

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Yay I can make quotes work... I feel so special...

:lol:

Thanks Wayne.

 

[scottb50]

[

So NASA and this other entity will be starting from scratch. But point taken, NASA has a legendary track record and Bigelow does not.

Both vehicles are still there that can't be half bad.

Does anyone know if they have a docking capability?

 

[EarthlingX]

Sorry MW I was all emotional and stuff. I stand corrected.

Internal volume of ISS (once completed, including Russian side) is 1200 cm
Internal volume of BA 330 is (obviously) 330 cm

so 4 flights.

Ekhm, you probably meant 1200 m3 and 330 m3 .. :roll:
cm is centi-metre, 0.01 of a metre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter#SI_p ... s_of_metre

 

[vulture4]

We must demonstrate that human spaceflight can be productive in LEO. A first step would be to use the ISS for mounting and testing a wide range of earth observation sensors and astronomical sensors, which could be mounted on ISS or co-orbit so that servicing can be performed from ISS. Microgravity materials science can similarly be expanded, and the ISS is a natural (so to speak) hub for space tourism. It may take many years to learn how humans can work productively in space. Without the Shuttle this will be much more difficult, and it will take time. It took decades to realize that the South Pole was an ideal side for astrophysics, for example. Other LEO stations can of course be built, but until we have a clear LEO objective that requires a different configuration or orbit there's certainly no reason to abandon it.

But if we cannot learn to be productive in LEO, we cannot possibly be productive on the moon or Mars, where neither earth observation nor microgravity is possible, astrononomical observation is more difficult, and logistics are far more expensive.then actually operating the station. It's unfortunatel that abandoning the Shuttle restricts our ability to resupply and expand it.

 

[DarkenedOne]

We must demonstrate that human spaceflight can be productive in LEO. A first step would be to use the ISS for mounting and testing a wide range of earth observation sensors and astronomical sensors, which could be mounted on ISS or co-orbit so that servicing can be performed from ISS. Microgravity materials science can similarly be expanded, and the ISS is a natural (so to speak) hub for space tourism. It may take many years to learn how humans can work productively in space. Without the Shuttle this will be much more difficult, and it will take time. It took decades to realize that the South Pole was an ideal side for astrophysics, for example. Other LEO stations can of course be built, but until we have a clear LEO objective that requires a different configuration or orbit there's certainly no reason to abandon it.

But if we cannot learn to be productive in LEO, we cannot possibly be productive on the moon or Mars, where neither earth observation nor microgravity is possible, astrononomical observation is more difficult, and logistics are far more expensive.then actually operating the station. It's unfortunatel that abandoning the Shuttle restricts our ability to resupply and expand it.

That is pretty much how I feel. LEO is far easier and cheaper to build and maintain a station in then on the moon. If building and maintaining the ISS places so much of a financial burden on NASA even when there is international sharing of the cost, than how in the world can NASA even hope do maintain a moon base completely on its own?

That is why I am so skeptical about NASAs return to the moon. Due to the problems that the Constellation program is already having I highly doubt the program will build a moon base on time and on budget. The Ares I is already projected to cost 40% more and take 2 year longer to develop than originally planned. At the same time this country is experiencing record high deficits, expensive new social programs, as well as declining interest in HSF. Combine all of these factors and I believe their is a strong possibility that the moon base will be cancelled.

So essentially what it boils down to is whether or not we should sacrifice the station we already have in orbit for a small chance of having a moon base.

There are other options I believe should be explored. Bringing aboard the Chinese, the Indians, and better yet both would almost certainly be able to sustain the ISS. The Chinese already have a human LEO system and the Indians are planning to build one shortly.

 

[Polishguy]

Hey, I'm all for space stations, if we can make them affordable. IMHO, NASA has been throwing away perfect space station modules for 30 years. They could have built a wet workshop station out of a Shuttle external tank years ago (and were planning to, until Challenger). But all is not lost. When Ares V is built, let's convert its core stage!

 

[Woggles]

Hi Everyone. I was reading this article and found this statement of interest. “In 1998, Congress passed the Commercial Space Act declaring that the primary goal in constructing the International Space Station was the "economic development of Earth orbital space."

I didn't know that!! Lol Here is the rest of the article.

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/space-f ... r-commerce

 

[rockett]

Problem is, we (and NASA) have been looking at the space station as an end itself, and stopped looking at it as a space base. If you look at scifi all the way back to the fifty's (at least) the point of the thing was as a waypoint to elsewhere, never an end point.

As Robert A. Heinlein said "Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."

I say, instead of making museum pieces out of them, build what remaining fuel tanks we can, fill the cargo bays with cryo tanks full of fuel and park the shuttles in parallel orbit to the station as fuel depots (maybe eject the cryo tank out of one to bring the crews back). Then we could build little orbital space taxis to service satellites, moon landing vehicles, whatever...