UK want ISS module

[aphh]

The habs look terrific. The way I see it, they should be on the way up already.

 

[pmn1]

Something like that was proposed in 2000 by P Kemp and C M Hempsell, it was called OS-10<br /><br />http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/358/id/1114/l/en<br /><br />The same Hempsell who is behind this proposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

nice design, but the real question is still who pays for it? I'd argue that an organization like CNN or Viacom might be an enabling partner. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[holmec]

SDC article<br /><br />This subject just made it across the pond to SDC. I have to say its looking better all the time.<br /><br />Also there seems to be an interest from international counrties in the ISS. Perhaps they may fuel a longer life for the station. Just have to see how this saga pans out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

Flynn's 100% right. <b>This proposal extremely unlikely. Period!</b><br /><br />Anybody who knows british politics, the british public and what's been happening in the UK space arena lately will know. Notice how HMG (Her Majesty's Government) has not said a single word, a single announcement or statement???<br /><br />So while british academia and industry should be congratulated for their creativity, ambitions and optimism and have come up with the kind of idea that reflects what a powerful, wealthy, ingenious nation like the UK should be doing, you're certainly dreaming if you think the UK government (coz I can't see it coming from our tiny, fragile aerospace industry) is going to suddenly cough up £500+ million sterling on any "out of this world" mission (nevermind <b>*MANNED*</b> spaceflight) while british taxpayers are complaining for the lack of adequate funding on "social" services like NHS, policing etc. Tbh, you have to be british to understand what thoughts the word "space" conjures up within the public, LOL.... yup the government knows better! This is a non-starter, plain and simple for these reasons besides the very true observations you guys raised earlier with respect to ISS remaining life, available launchers, logistics, ISS partner issues etc.<br /><br />To be fair, there is change in the winds. 2006/07 marked the start of something unusual in british media and politics, with space exploration coming to the fore. A number of issues has caused this including:<br /><br />- the NASA/world gearing up to return to the moon (GSES)<br />- british-born US astronauts saying that the UK should get involved in human spaceflight<br />- Mike Griffin in London meeting with the DTI (science/industry) minister<br />- british-born ESA science chief saying that the UK has made a big mistake not funding ESA's human spaceflight activities<br />- reputable elements of british space industry/academia single-handedly, seriously proposing feasible robotic missions to the moon within

 

[alpha_centauri]

Agreed, things are beginning to change in the right direction, but it's like trying to to turn a supertanker. It's not going to be quick.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<But while BIS/UK academia's $1 BILLION, ISS module idea is definitely the kind of thinking we need to get out there in the public domain, media and parliament to drive things in the right direction.... IMHO its sadly just hot air at this point.><br /><br />Thanks for the background brief.<br /><br />If the UK is unwilling to spend a billion Dollars to mount a manned spaceflight effort, what about a quarter of that much money? It seems to me that manned spaceflight aspirations could be met by buying time on a Bigelow Aerospace orbital station. That is after all the kind of market that Bigelow is focused on.

 

[JonClarke]

Except that a operational Bigelow station does not yet exist. Nor does a confirmed mans of getting to it. There isn't even a meaningful baseline that groups outside Bigelow can tailor their missions to. The ISS is much better for what the UK wants to go. And they do have cheaper options they can exercise than billion dollar modules.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>things are beginning to change in the right direction, but it's like trying to to turn a supertanker. It's not going to be quick. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yup, and this proposal would be the equivalent of a F1 car turning at 5-g or an F-22 pulling 9-g!!

 

[j05h]

<i>> Except that a operational Bigelow station does not yet exist.</i><br /><br />Bigelow has 2 mini-stations onorbit right now. They are not full-up, ready for crew modules, but they exist. They have made a lot of progress in few years.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Except that a operational Bigelow station does not yet exist. Nor does a confirmed mans of getting to it. There isn't even a meaningful baseline that groups outside Bigelow can tailor their missions to.><br /><br />The BA-330 is no more speculative than the proposed UK module for the ISS, and is currently timelined to be available sooner as well.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yup, and this proposal would be the equivalent of ... an F-22 pulling 9-g!!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Actually, most fighters since the introduction of the F-16, including the F-22, are capable of beyond 9 Gs. What prevents them from pulling more? The pilot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[Zipi]

I was just wondering... Why they cannot utilize "old" MPLMs to build these HEMs? Dimensions of HEM:<br /><br />http://www.aer.bris.ac.uk/research/hem/hem_drawings_1.pdf<br /><br />Wikipedia article of MPLM:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPLM#Specifications<br /><br />As you can see MPLMs are only slightly larger than HEMs... So why they cannot utileze already built pressurized hulls which as well have the common betrhing mechanism already after the shuttle retires? Leonardo should be available for this after september 2008 and Donatello after April 2009. Just add the small windows, solar panels, inside structures and planned Russian thrusters/docking system and you have HEM... I guess NASA cannot utilize these after the shuttle has been retired.<br /><br />I also guess that they won't need the complete Russian docking system, because they can fly these close enough and crab with the robotic arm as the HTV has been planned to dock with the ISS. Or maybe they can utilize HTV's navigation and docking system...<br /><br />Ok... I'm just telling what ideas I got, feel free to judge. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>This isn't going to happen, I'm affraid the BIS are in dreamworld on this one. <br /><br />British Politics will not support manned space flight at this time.</i><br /><br />It it is a dream world then a considerable number of other science and technology groups who also share it.<br /><br />There is a groundswell of support in the UK and unprecedented politcal openness to suggestions of expanding the UK's role in space.<br /><br />It is the most promising time for British space in 40 years.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nibb31]

The UK is part of ESA, and ESA now has a module on the ISS. All the UK needs to do is to extend their ESA participation to the human space flight budget, and they will have a module and a seat.<br /><br />No way are they going to be able to build (or convert) 2 modules and convince NASA to add 2 more flights to the shuttle manifest in less than 2 years. It's just not realistic. 2 years isn't even enough to train an astronaut. Besides, the ISS doesn't need a conference room or a TV studio. There are already much more useful components that were cut (the centrifuge comes to mind).<br /><br />If the UK is serious about manned space flight, what ESA really needs right now is a crew reentry capsule for the ATV/Ariane architecture. The UK could take leadership of that role. That would provide autonomous manned spaceflight capability to Europe.

 

[JonClarke]

I agree. However additional modules coud be launched and attached on the Russian segment, I believe.<br /><br />There is certainly a separate need for a crew and cargo descent module on the ATV.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The MLPMs were only designed with temporary use per mission in mind. They also were built with the sheltered environment of an orbiters bay in mind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was just wondering... Why they cannot utilize "old" MPLMs to build these HEMs?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I was thinking the exact same thing myself. It might also solve the problem of launching it on the Shuttle. Instead of having to fund two extra launches, they could just launch the converted MPLMs on STS-128 and 130 (the last MPLM flights) with the cargo crammed into all of the available spaces.<br /><br />Another solution: Don't convert the MPLMs on the ground, but leave them attached to the station on the last flights. Then launch the life support racks on board COTS flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>