Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

Page 11 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nibb31

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />The gravity fairies will take over safely gliding the CEV towards the ISS after the crew has completed their lunar mission.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />and you want us to take you seriously ?<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />If we don’t utilize the ISS as an assembly platform, more than likely we’ll have to build one. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You don't need an assembly platform. Russians have been assembling large structures in space since the 70's by automatically docking components together. Once you've got one component of your mars ship in orbit, there is your assembly station!<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />That’s a long time to sit in a four man Apollo styled module eating baby food,<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Nobody ever talked about sending people to mars in a CEV alone. The CEV would only be the re-entry vehicle/lifeboat for a mars mission. A mars ship will likely have one or several Destiny-class or Bigelow habitation modules. Oh, and of course, CEV is 5m wide and offers much more volume than an Apollo CM.
 
L

larper

Guest
So, the answer to may question is that you don't know. You don't have a solution that allows the CEV to enter LEO and dock with ISS after a lunar return. But you are ready to insult anyone who disagrees with your mission profile. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
I said gravity fairies to avoid getting into a big lecture on orbital mechanics, and avoid another pointless argument w/ Larper who only wanted to argue over nothing at all for argument’s sake. I will even go as far as to say that there is no feasible way to launch the men/materials necessary to successfully complete a Mars mission without first making use of a cost effective RLV.<br /><br />As for a Destiny-class, or Bigelow habitation modules I have seen no such plans by NASA to justify your claim. All I’ve seen are a few CGI animations of the CEV returning of Uncle Sam back to the Moon, and beyond produced by a few young republicans. Therefore I must assume that these conservatives plan on using the same plans for the missions to Mars<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
So how does the CEV enter LEO to dock with the ISS? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
> So how does the CEV enter LEO to dock with the ISS?<br /><br />Marcel said Gravity Fairies. To be fair, fairies go hand-in-hand with Trolls. See, Marcel_Leonard is a special type of Troll, the type of troll that keeps people coming back for more. Feeding Trolls is very dangerous. Eventually they drag you back to their cave for dinner. Space.com should pay him for all the traffic he generates. <br /><br />I can't believe I posted ANOTHER time to the Troll Thread. It's like a train wreck, I can't tear my eyes away from it.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
<font color="yellow"><i>"I think he honestly believes what he is writing. It is unfortunate we have been unable to convince him. "</i></font><br /><br />If I didn't believe what I was saying why would I say it? Comments likes yours coming from a Coder, Artist, and Techie fall on deaf ears if you are trying play the game of having some superior knowledge on the subject of orbital mechanics. If I thought for one second you’ll had the slightest academic background in mechanical physics, statics, or dynamics I might take you’ll seriously; instead I’ll just laugh at you like a child who thinks that by saying “2x2=5” enough times that they will eventually convince everyone that their answer is right... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
F

fatjoe

Guest
Oooooh Snap somebody just got kicked out of their parent's house for being a forty year old virgin!!!
 
N

nibb31

Guest
So how does the CEV enter LEO to dock with the ISS? <br /><br />If you do not have an answer to this key part of the mission profile that you are proposing, then we must conclude that you have no argument.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Scottb50:<br />It should be simple to take Modules to LEO, as cargo, and dock them to Vehicles going to the moon, Mars, asteroids or Platforms in various Earth Orbits. Once the Vehicle reaches lunar or Martian orbit the Modules are transferred to a Landing/Ascent Vehicle and taken to the surface. Undock from one Vehicle and dock to another. Plug and Play.<br /><br />Me:<br />It should be simple to do a lot of things in space and if it were, it would already be getting done. Plug and play hasn't even been that simple for computer technology. <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>
 
L

larper

Guest
Well, unfortunately, you have no idea what MY background is. So, I ask again:<br /><br />How does the CEV enter LEO to dock with the ISS on a return trip from the moon?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
It's done everytime Soyus or Shuttle dock to ISS, it has been done with the modules used to build ISS, it was used for the moon missions and demonstrated with Gemini in the sixties.<br /><br />The biggest problem is getting the Modules to LEO not connecting them together. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
From a business standpoint an OSP would greatly reduced the cost of SatCom deliveries, and greatly increase military contracts. The same way Howard Hughes, and Juan Trip made the passenger airline industry grow by offering cross country flights from the east to the west coast by flying the Boeing/ LockMart planes capable of flying at above 3000 ft. OSP will eventually do the same thing for the not too distant future of passenger aviation.<br /><br />Just as before Charles Lindbergh made his famous transatlantic flight from New York to Paris he made his living flying mail for the Post Master General because before people felt safe flying on airplanes; they had no problems w/ airmail. SatCom is today’s airmail and an OSP preferably w/ a combination of scramjet/ rocket propulsion which can fly from Baltimore International AP, and land thirty five minutes later at Tokyo International AP will jump start the next generation of passenger aviation. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
But, how does the CEV enter LEO to dock with the ISS on a lunar return? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
W

webtaz99

Guest
While the business and marketing aspect of that anology is good, the technical end is fundamentally different. Early airplanes were pushing the envelope in terms of human knowledge and manufacturing techniques, whereas an OSP is pushing the envelope of material science and physics laws. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

Versus

Guest
Let me return to one of my ideas posted here a long time ago...<br /><br />Why is so hard to construct the space ship that would serve as the orbital space station and when mission to outer planets is undertaken simply add fuel and let’s go…It can also be unmanned if the need is such. <br /><br />Of course, that would demean ISS but…<br />
 
Q

qso1

Guest
One of the fundamental problems to be overcome by an OSP or equivalent to make them more economical is to build an LV or utilize an LV with a high flight rate. AFAIK, no LV has a flight rate of much less than once a month. I chose a Delta 7000 series to illustrate this because the heavy Delta has not yet flown enough times to see what its operational flight rate will be. In actuality, a Delta 7000 series could not lift an OSP into orbit. Payloads also determine flight rates and there would have to be enough payloads available to keep OSP economical.<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm<br /><br />The above link shows launch data for Delta medium vehicles. These vehicles are listed at $60 million in 1999 dollars. The turnaround times average 1 flight per month. With 2 pads it can be shorter as shown on the 31 August and 9 September 1992 flights using both pads.<br /><br />The traffic model originally envisioned for the STS was flights every two weeks. This in part because regardless of LV, the average turnaround time is about a month.<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm<br /><br />At the above link, one can see what happens when a market collapses or does not materialize as evidenced by the cost figures listed ($170 mil in 99, $254 mil in 2004) for Delta heavy.<br /><br />Even for the most mass produced rocket in the world, Soyuz series, the flight rates are not significantly different. What is different about Soyuz is that it is mass produced at a higher rate because it is the workhorse of Russian spaceflight.<br /><br />Still, the dates of missions shown on the link below show that the flight rate is about the same as U.S. launchers and the cost is somewhat less ($50 mil) than a Delta 7000 series. <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>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Versus:<br />Let me return to one of my ideas posted here a long time ago... <br /><br />Me:<br />Sometimes, the simplest ideas backfire. This was exactly what happened when the shuttle was proposed to be a "Be all bend all" solution. The AF requirements had to be met, NASA requirements had to be met and look what has happened since, and I'm not talking accidents. I'm talking the shuttle being used for everything from satellite repair, deployment, all of which it did well but the operational lower flight rates could not be overcome.<br /><br />On your idea, just to simply add fuel and lets go would require an orbital tanker on a scale significantly larger than Progress vehicles for starters.<br /><br />But the biggest barrier is not technical at all. Its cost and much of any manned space vehicle or unmanned for that matters cost is personnell to support development and operation of the vehicles in question. <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>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
The reality of the situation is there is no reason we can’t do both. As far as I’m concerned I a proponent of designing a functional OSP before we do anything else; because when we reduce the cost orbital deliveries it makes the Moon/Mars that much to becoming a reality.<br /><br />Those non-technical SDC members that would tell you otherwise; probably have some hidden political agenda, and I would be surprised if they were being compensated by the current administration. The weakest argument one could make for not being able to combine a mission to the Moon/Mars as well as the ISS is by arguing fuel requirements and orbital mechanics is neither my proposed OSP, or Bush’s proposed CEV have been built yet.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">because we reduce the cost orbital deliveries<br /><br /><font color="white">The Ares I and Ares V will be cheaper per lb to orbit that the current systems, and probably cheaper than an OSP would have been.</font></font>
 
C

craigmac

Guest
I for one agree with your assessment of the future of telecommunications I have an old Marine buddy of mine that sends me email from Iraq. When I asked him what ISP he was using he told me that his unit had VSAT connections for TV, Internet, and Telephone calls. I was blown away that in today’s world for about 50k per unit, and 8k per month you could provide your entire neighborhood block with voice, video, and data.
 
N

nibb31

Guest
Funny how you and marcel always tend to agree with each other at 100% and use the same irrelevant inline linking to illustrate your posts...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY