The ISS= Interplanetary Space Ship??

[robnissen]

<p>There is a very interesting article in the Washington Post today.&nbsp; It suggests modifying the ISS as a huge fricken Interplanetary Space Ship.&nbsp; The article is here:</p><p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html</p><p>Below are some excerpts from the article.&nbsp; My question:&nbsp; Is this guy smokin some great s&*^, or is&nbsp;it&nbsp;possible that this could be done?&nbsp;</p><p><em>It's easy to predict what skeptics both inside and outside NASA will say to this idea. They'll point out that the new Constellation program is already supposed to have at least the beginnings of interplanetary ability. They'll say that the ISS needs to be resupplied too frequently for long missions. They'll worry about the amount of propellant needed to push the ISS's 1,040,000 pounds anywhere -- not to mention bringing them all back. </em></p><p><em>There are good answers to all these objections. We'll still need the new Constellation Ares boosters and Orion capsules -- fortuitously, they can easily be adapted to a scenario in which the ISS becomes the living- area and lab core of an interplanetary spacecraft. The Ares V heavy-lift booster could easily send aloft the additional supplies and storage and drive modules necessary to make the ISS truly deep-space-worthy. </em></p><p><em>The Orion crew exploration module is designed to be ISS-compatible. It could serve as a guidance system and also use its own rocket engine to help boost and orient the interplanetary ISS. After remaining dormant for much of the one-year journey to, say, Mars, it could then be available to conduct independent operations while the ISS core orbited the Red Planet, or to investigate an asteroid near Earth, for instance. </em></p><p><em>But, the skeptics will say, the new Orion capsule's engines wouldn't be nearly enough; a spacecraft as large as the ISS would need its own drive system. Here, too, we're in surprisingly good shape. The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think. Moreover, a drive system doesn't have to be based on chemical rockets. Over the past two decades, both the U.S. and Japanese programs have conducted highly successful tests in space of ion-drive systems. Unlike the necessarily impatient rockets we use to escape Earth's gravity and reach orbit, these long-duration, low-thrust engines produce the kind of methodical acceleration (and deceleration) appropriate for travel once a spacecraft is already floating in zero gravity. They would be a perfect way to send the ISS on its way and bring it back to Earth again. </em></p><p><br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[baulten]

It COULD be done.&nbsp; Shouldn't be, though.&nbsp; It's just not the right kind of... THING for interplanetary travel.&nbsp; While the construction of interplanetary ships in orbit is inevitable, the ISS is just not the appropriate structure for the job.&nbsp; It wasn't designed that way, and I dobut it could be REDESIGNED that way.

 

[docm]

Exactly.&nbsp; Something more appropriate would be a ship that could impart some form of rotational "gravity" and not just a be tin can. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Yeah, they're smikin some stuff. The ISS is a massive LEO orbital space station. It would be ludicrous, incredibly expensive, impossible to resupply, and a huge waste of money. An interplanetary craft needs to be designed for that purpose.</p><p>Unless we have 10 or 20 trillion dollars we can throw away...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wayne</p> <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>

 

[aphh]

<p>But why wasn't this very idea introduced in the beginning of ISS? Is it because ISS is a cobble-something-expensive-together desing?</p><p>Ofcourse the ISS should have been a inter-planetary laboratory and spacecraft once completed. Or a platform, that supported inter-planetary science.</p><p>ISS is more like Skylab and Mir combined, plus the ESA and Japanese spending added in the mix. It is a program for program's sake, I believe.</p><p>(I'm not a ISS critic, I just want more)&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a very interesting article in the Washington Post today.&nbsp; It suggests modifying the ISS as a huge fricken Interplanetary Space Ship.&nbsp; The article is here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.htmlBelow are some excerpts from the article.&nbsp; My question:&nbsp; Is this guy smokin some great s&*^, or is&nbsp;it&nbsp;possible that this could be done?&nbsp;It's easy to predict what skeptics both inside and outside NASA will say to this idea. They'll point out that the new Constellation program is already supposed to have at least the beginnings of interplanetary ability. They'll say that the ISS needs to be resupplied too frequently for long missions. They'll worry about the amount of propellant needed to push the ISS's 1,040,000 pounds anywhere -- not to mention bringing them all back. There are good answers to all these objections. We'll still need the new Constellation Ares boosters and Orion capsules -- fortuitously, they can easily be adapted to a scenario in which the ISS becomes the living- area and lab core of an interplanetary spacecraft. The Ares V heavy-lift booster could easily send aloft the additional supplies and storage and drive modules necessary to make the ISS truly deep-space-worthy. The Orion crew exploration module is designed to be ISS-compatible. It could serve as a guidance system and also use its own rocket engine to help boost and orient the interplanetary ISS. After remaining dormant for much of the one-year journey to, say, Mars, it could then be available to conduct independent operations while the ISS core orbited the Red Planet, or to investigate an asteroid near Earth, for instance. But, the skeptics will say, the new Orion capsule's engines wouldn't be nearly enough; a spacecraft as large as the ISS would need its own drive system. Here, too, we're in surprisingly good shape. The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think. Moreover, a drive system doesn't have to be based on chemical rockets. Over the past two decades, both the U.S. and Japanese programs have conducted highly successful tests in space of ion-drive systems. Unlike the necessarily impatient rockets we use to escape Earth's gravity and reach orbit, these long-duration, low-thrust engines produce the kind of methodical acceleration (and deceleration) appropriate for travel once a spacecraft is already floating in zero gravity. They would be a perfect way to send the ISS on its way and bring it back to Earth again. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br />This sounds like a dangerous and short sighted idea to me.&nbsp; If we want interplanetary transportation for humans I think we need to start with Wernher von Braun's design and fund and create the enabling technologies to implement it in some form.&nbsp; I also disagree with the Ares concept being used to cobble together a minimal mass mission to&nbsp;Mars for the same reason.&nbsp; If we are going to go we need to go with more margin for error and tolerance for the unexpected than the current plans I have seen.&nbsp; And if we go we need to plan on staying and not just going for the thrill of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But why wasn't this very idea introduced in the beginning of ISS? Is it because ISS is a cobble-something-expensive-together desing?Ofcourse the ISS should have been a inter-planetary laboratory and spacecraft once completed. Or a platform, that supported inter-planetary science.ISS is more like Skylab and Mir combined, plus the ESA and Japanese spending added in the mix. It is a program for program's sake, I believe.(I'm not a ISS critic, I just want more)&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>The two functions are completely different. The ISS was designed to be an orbiting laboratory. An Interplanetary spacecraft would be MUCH smaller, since all the extra size is not needed.</p> <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>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The two functions are completely different. The ISS was designed to be an orbiting laboratory. An Interplanetary spacecraft would be MUCH smaller, since all the extra size is not needed. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Sure. But the world gave up on Mars or the Moon when ISS got the green light. There's no way the agencies could plan for an ambitious interplanetary or Moon mission, while building and maintaining ISS at the same time. No government is going to allocate resources for 2 huge human missions at the same time.<br /> </p><p>So we're stuck on LEO for decades more after fifteen or more years already on LEO (Skylab + many Salyut stations + Mir).&nbsp;</p><p>Edit: well, the ISS got ESA finally on track with their spacecrafts. But if they chose to build the new manned craft, it's going to be 10 years before it would be operational and perhaps another 10 years before any chance for a moon shot.</p><p>Do we have 20 years to wait for a moon shot? I'm not sure.&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But why wasn't this very idea introduced in the beginning of ISS? Is it because ISS is a cobble-something-expensive-together desing?Ofcourse the ISS should have been a inter-planetary laboratory and spacecraft once completed. Or a platform, that supported inter-planetary science.ISS is more like Skylab and Mir combined, plus the ESA and Japanese spending added in the mix. It is a program for program's sake, I believe.(I'm not a ISS critic, I just want more)&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>The ISS is a rather large object in essentially low earth orbit.&nbsp; Moving it to a higher orbit, or to an earth escape orbit would take a large dose of propulsion.&nbsp; Sending it on&nbsp;an interplanetary trip would take a bit more.&nbsp; Providing power for it enroute and on site might be a problem, depending on the destination.&nbsp; And once you got there what are you going to do ?&nbsp; Land ?&nbsp; Then there is the minor problem of coming back.&nbsp; Even if the remainder of the idea made sense (it doesn't) we don't have the propulsion capability to pull it off.</p><p>On the scale of nutty ideas, making the ISS into an interplanetary space ship rates a 10.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ISS is a rather large object in essentially low earth orbit.&nbsp; Moving it to a higher orbit, or to an earth escape orbit would take a large dose of propulsion.&nbsp; Sending it on&nbsp;an interplanetary trip would take a bit more.&nbsp; Providing power for it enroute and on site might be a problem, depending on the destination.&nbsp; And once you got there what are you going to do ?&nbsp; Land ?&nbsp; Then there is the minor problem of coming back.&nbsp; Even if the remainder of the idea made sense (it doesn't) we don't have the propulsion capability to pull it off.On the scale of nutty ideas, making the ISS into an interplanetary space ship rates a 10.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It's still good to see, that quite a few people have suddenly realized, that we have this huge craft now circling the earth. It's only logical, that the next thing that they would think is "why isn't it circling Mars?".&nbsp;</p>

 

[robnissen]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's still good to see, that quite a few people have suddenly realized, that we have this huge craft now circling the earth. It's only logical, that the next thing that they would think is "why isn't it circling Mars?".&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I agree.&nbsp; The ISS would not land on Mars, anymore than it lands on earth, attached crafts (Mars modules?) would be used for that.&nbsp; &nbsp; Power for normal activities should not be a problem out to Mars orbit with all the solar panels.&nbsp; Boosting it out of earth orbit, would be a major issue, perhaps ion propulsion or something else.&nbsp; Also if we can boost it out of the massive gravity sink of Earth orbit, it should be relatively simple to boost it out of the sink of Mars orbit</p><p>"The two functions are completely different. The ISS was designed to be an orbiting laboratory. An Interplanetary spacecraft would be MUCH smaller, since all the extra size is not needed."</p><p>While "the extra size is not needed," it would make it much easier to travel to Mars and speed of travel would not be as important.&nbsp; It would be like crossing the ocean on the Queen&nbsp;Elizabeth 2&nbsp;instead of in a row boat.&nbsp; Even if the row boat was faster, most would prefer the Queen Elizabeth 2. &nbsp; Plus most of the activities that take place on the ISS now, could also be done in route to and from Mars, so there would be valuable science done in route.</p><p>I think the most interesting point of the article, is that we have paid billions of dollars to boost millions of pounds into LEO.&nbsp; Relatively speaking, it would not cost that much more to boost from LEO to a Mars trek.&nbsp; Although inserting into Mars orbit might be tricky.<br /></p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I agree.&nbsp; The ISS would not land on Mars, anymore than it lands on earth, attached crafts (Mars modules?) would be used for that.&nbsp; &nbsp; Power for normal activities should not be a problem out to Mars orbit with all the solar panels.&nbsp; Boosting it out of earth orbit, would be a major issue, perhaps ion propulsion or something else.&nbsp; Also if we can boost it out of the massive gravity sink of Earth orbit, it should be relatively simple to boost it out of the sink of Mars orbit"The two functions are completely different. The ISS was designed to be an orbiting laboratory. An Interplanetary spacecraft would be MUCH smaller, since all the extra size is not needed."While "the extra size is not needed," it would make it much easier to travel to Mars and speed of travel would not be as important.&nbsp; It would be like crossing the ocean on the Queen&nbsp;Elizabeth 2&nbsp;instead of in a row boat.&nbsp; Even if the row boat was faster, most would prefer the Queen Elizabeth 2. &nbsp; Plus most of the activities that take place on the ISS now, could also be done in route to and from Mars, so there would be valuable science done in route.I think the most interesting point of the article, is that we have paid billions of dollars to boost millions of pounds into LEO.&nbsp; Relatively speaking, it would not cost that much more to boost from LEO to a Mars trek.&nbsp; Although inserting into Mars orbit might be tricky. <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br />Well, where's the infrastructure to resupply it every month or two, without which it would be unihabitable? <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>

 

[silylene old]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, where's the infrastructure to resupply it every month or two, without which it would be unihabitable? <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />MW is correct, we have no interplanetary version of a Progress to bring fresh supplies.</p><p>Also the ISS doesn't have enough shielding for solar coronal flares, or worse, coronal ejections.&nbsp; We don't want to fry our astronauts/cosmonauts!</p><p>And, how are we going to fix / replace a balky ISS toilet, computer, oxygen generator, solar panel tracking motor, gyro, or gimbal?&nbsp; I recall crises with each of these at various times in ISS history.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MW is correct, we have no interplanetary version of a Progress to bring fresh supplies.Also the ISS doesn't have enough shielding for solar coronal flares, or worse, coronal ejections.&nbsp; We don't want to fry our astronauts/cosmonauts!And, how are we going to fix / replace a balky ISS toilet, computer, oxygen generator, solar panel tracking motor, gyro, or gimbal?&nbsp; I recall crises with each of these at various times in ISS history. <br />Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>It certainly would not be a slam-dunk to send the ISS to Mars.&nbsp; But the problems you mention, generally are not problems related to the ISS, but rather problems related to traveling to Mars.&nbsp; We will have to have massive supplies to get to Mars, regardless of what ship is used.&nbsp; But the ISS certainly has more volume for storage of supplies than any space ship that could reasonably be built to go to Mars.&nbsp; Thus the ISS makes the supply problem, easier and not harder.&nbsp; We also have a huge problem protecting astrounauts during the long trek to Mars, perhaps that would be the downfall of using the ISS, but it seems possible that perhaps the ISS could be designed with a "safe room" that would be heavily shielded (perhaps with lead) in which the astronauts could stay during a CME.&nbsp; (The CME are well-known in advance, there would be plenty of time to take cover.)&nbsp; The other problems you raise are due to the fact that humans do not make perfect machines.&nbsp; Perhaps you have a reason to believe a future Mars craft will be perfect, but I don't.&nbsp; Thus, things breaking on the&nbsp;long voyage will not be unique to the&nbsp;ISS. &nbsp;Again, the ISS may have an advantage because of its size,&nbsp;more repair material could be stored to be used for repairs on the way to Mars.&nbsp; On the other hand, because of its size there are more things that could break, I'm not sure how that comes out.</p>

 

[baulten]

Didn't someone on this forum propose this idea a few weeks ago?

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Didn't someone on this forum propose this idea a few weeks ago? <br /> Posted by baulten</DIV><br />It was, and as far as I remember, everytime it was suggested, this idea was riddled with holes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was, and as far as I remember, everytime it was suggested, this idea was riddled with holes. <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>That's what I thought.&nbsp; I knew it was suggested that it be turned into some kind of orbital assembly station, an idea that was also shot down, but I couldn't remember for sure if it was suggested that it be turned into a space ship.&nbsp; Silly ideas! </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1. &nbsp;&nbsp; Power for normal activities should not be a problem out to Mars orbit with all the solar panels.&nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; Boosting it out of earth orbit, would be a major issue, perhaps ion propulsion or something else.&nbsp; Also if we can boost it out of the massive gravity sink of Earth orbit, </p><p>3. Plus most of the activities that take place on the ISS now, could also be done in route to and from Mars, so there would be valuable science done in route.I think the most interesting point of the article, is that we have paid billions of dollars to boost millions of pounds into LEO.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;4.&nbsp; Relatively speaking, it would not cost that much more to boost from LEO to a Mars trek.&nbsp; A<br /> Posted by robnissen</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; Incorrect, the power levels would be lower in Mars orbit</p><p>2.&nbsp; Where is the power for the ion propulsion come from?</p><p>3.&nbsp; Incorrect, there is no logistics to support the science.&nbsp; The science requires samples to be returned to earth. </p><p>4.&nbsp; Huh?&nbsp; It would cost billions. </p><p>the ISS was designed for a LEO environment, not for lunar or translunar space. </p><p>The ISS thermal control system is based on LEO environment, where the influence of the Earth is a large player. The ISS GNC system is LEO based (GPS and horizon sensors. Same goe for the power systems.</p> <p>There also is the issue of radiation protection for the crew, since the Van Allen belts no longer protect the crew. And there is the problem of a slow transit through them too</p><p>&nbsp;</p>