STS External tank stations

[pmn1]

What are the guestimates on cost and time (apart from Space Island Group's) for modifying a Shuttle ET into an ET-Station and launching it in place of the Orbitter (with the necessary modifications to get it to final orbit).<br /><br />What is the max diameter side load that could be handled? <br /><br />SIG are coming in at $2billion and 3-4 years <br /><br />http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/dual-launch.html <br /><br />If it is a viable option then i'm surprised that no-one in Congress has suggested it or one of the other ET-station options as ISS costs rise...or have they? <br /><br />There are the International implications but..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>What are the guestimates on cost and time (apart from Space Island Group's) for modifying a Shuttle ET into an ET-Station and launching it in place of the Orbitter (with the necessary modifications to get it to final orbit). <br /><br />Realistic costs for modifying/redesigning the ET into a wet lab are in the 2-6 billion range if NASA did it. This would end up being a complete tank redesign with no guarantee of success. They've been dumping ETs in the ocean for 25 years, there is no indication they will ever orbit one, much less outfit it. Space Island Group is an 80's holdover, IMHO. They are producing cool graphics and not much else. If they really wanted to make space habitats on a large scale, they would be working with Bigelow, not trying to get NASA to do something they have so far refused. <br /><br />Side payload on a "shuttle-C" type vehicle probably has a max diameter of 5-6 meters. Sidemounted payloads are, however, part of the problem not the solution.<br /><br />ET space stations have a certain Apollo/hacker panache' to them, but are not realistic with how NASA operates. IOS has a design called "Neptune" that includes a wet-hab in the LOX tank for their tourists. Skylab was a wet lab, reusing large tankage for habitable space makes sense but is not something NASA is interested in. <br /><br />One thing for LEO stations is that the ET has a very large cross-section that will increase any ET-Station's reboost needs. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"Skylab was a wet lab"<br /><br />No, Skylab was not a wet lab. It was a dry lab, completely outfitted on the ground. <br /><br />The distinction between the wet and dry lab concepts is not whether the lab used something that was once a tank - it is whether that tank was ever used as a tank. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Yeah, pmn1, sadly, the ET as hab concept is ancient history. It was dead ten years ago as it turns out. Plans for a modified ET were drawn up and the idea had a crusader in NASA who eventually had to give up in the face of NASA opposition at all levels.<br /><br />The real deal killer in technical terms must be mentioned. The foam. That darn foam on the ET that beats up on our orbiters? If you put it in orbit, it is predicted to be attacked by atomic oxygen to the extent that it would become a cloud of orange pollution, a nasty mess no one would want to park their spaceship next to, let alone live in. So that problem needs to be dealt with and IIRC SIG never did address that issue. The solution is simple in concept IMO, but not so easy to execute: wrap that rascal! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I always thought that the real deal killer was the tank's size (very big) and mass (very low). Like the old Echo balloons they would fall out of orbit very quickly if not either boosted to a higher orbit or maintained by an engine. Back in the 90s NASA said that they would be willing to place an ET into orbit (they actually have to expend MORE propellant to put the tank into a reentry trajectory than to take it all the way into orbit) for any organization that could prove it had the ability to maintain the tank safely in orbit. Needless to say that kind of orbital infrastructure does not yet exist.

 

[drwayne]

I beleive that there was legislation requiring NASA to do that - if somone could show a legitimate plan to do something with the tank - safely...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Yup, it literally took an Act of Congress to make NASA give it a fair hearing.<br /><br />My understanding is that a high LEO was the assumed orbit in order to get the orbital decay very low. But to be fair, eventually the thing is going to come down if the company fails. So NASA feared they would have to step in and save the day at that point. The thing is that the dV to get it into a 100 year orbit is not all that much, and all it takes is a minor leap of faith that we'll have the space capability to deal with it at that future date.<br /><br />So for me, NASA's attitude indicated a complete lack of faith in the future and I found that completely unacceptable.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[soccerguy789]

I like Space islans simpleest idea,<br /><br />(http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/Gallery/siggallery07.jpg)<br /><br /> with a few moddifications, instead of having prebuilt hab space in the back, put it in the front of NASA'a new heavy launcher, with a large habe build on land filling the uper section, serving as a nice station built on the ground (making it cheap) with the optioon to modify the tank into lower deacks later, since hab space is significantly lighter that the fuel laden EDs the launcher is designed to lauch, u could probably launch the materials for the expabsion right into with the origonal launch, think about it, Massive space station, buiolt in one launch, expanded over several crew missions. simple and effective. <br /><br />

 

[j05h]

>No, Skylab was not a wet lab. It was a dry lab, completely outfitted on the ground. <br /><br />Doh! Correction noted.<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Of course, it did try to un-outfit itself on the way to orbit.<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>