What might ISS's succesor look like?

[acid_frost]

As for the Bigelow Aerospace and their inflatable stations I think they have more promise in the private sector to do what NASA took to done in 10-15yrs with the Intl space station.<br /><br />Though i wonder why we cant use some of the core pieces of the ISS to be used in future, possible Bigelow inflatable stations and add them to the Core of the ISS? Is it necessary to really rid ourselves after all the money put into the station to rid ourselves of this monument of Intl cooperation? Everyone is on this bandwagon to get rid of it as soon as we have or will finish it and I think it is simply a waste of marvel engineering.<br /><br />I think it is possible we should use the core of the ISS to add on pieces from the Bigelow inflatable stations it makes sense.<br /><br />To be honest iam not worried or care what China does as all their technology is simply stolen and nothing of theirs is an interest or can contribute that they haven’t stolen or will steal if they are allowed to join! <br /><br />As for NASA and it ever going back into the building a space station again I would certainly hope they never as they have made the Intl space station into a waste pit of money and cost overruns as usual.<br /><br />What I think should be our real next accomplishment with the help of all our Intl partners should be to build some type of space vessel of some sorts. We need to get people out of LEO and the Moon no one cares about the moon and are more inclined to go to Mars. Though they are saying we can’t do that for another what 10-15yrs give me a break! I get so sick to death of NASA and other companies state that oh we can’t do that and it is going cost. Things only seem to cost a lot when NASA has their hands on things. There are certainly other technologies which we haven’t used and aren’t acknowledging that exist and I know there are other technologies and other on these boards know that it is so also. <br /><br />Also I think for the most part big government agency such as

 

[j05h]

<i>>>“Can't happpen. no US, no ISS. The ISS can't run without US involvement.â€<br /> /> This type of thinking is pure arrogance to think that JAXA & ESA cant do it alone,</i><br /><br />Actually, he's right. Half of the station's control and communication is located at Johnson Space Center in Texas. The infrastructure is such that it can not be easily replaced. This is much different than the "next generation" Bigelow hardware, which apparently has modest groundstation requirements. JAXA and ESA don't have the skills, budgets or labor force to manage ISS. Could they, or similar medium-sized entities, operate Bigelow-type stations? Yes, and affordably so if they prove viable. But that is wholy different than somehow taking control from NASA. <br /><br />Taking NASA out of ISS would be as bad as taking Russia out - the project couldn't continue. It is tied to both agencies, and all the others as well. Congress recently got a report back indicating a path toward turning the US segment into a National Lab, which opens up new funding sources for scientists and possibly new uses for the station. It also shores up US involvement in the project. <br /><br />How successful ISS appears to the public will directly reflect whether more government-funded space stations are built in the mid-term. This cooperative effort can be considered the shining achievement of the industrial world or a white elephant. Can it be both? Can it live up to some of it's promise? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[acid_frost]

J05H<br /><br />That is a fair explanation, iam not all that familiar with what is what when it comes to the ISS though thank you for pointing that out to me nonetheless. I work in the Defense Industry and I can tell you that the public could careless about NASA or what it does. They have shown no progress or no compliments and if NASA wants to continue they need to do something which gets the approval of the people behind them. NASA is a prideful agency by the American people at one time though today I would say that what NASA is isn’t something in which it used to be.<br /><br />If the ISS infrastructure is in Houston why cant that be turned over or moved to another location so that it can be taken into another direction?<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

It is just not the location*, it is the skill set of the people. Boeing would always need to be involved since they are the system engineering org and know the ins and outs of the vehicle. <br /><br />Things in Houston: MCC, Trainers, system experts.<br /><br />Things that NASA only has TDRS, control software.<br /><br />There would be ITAR issues with transfering the ISS

 

[vogon13]

For those of you who do not recall the ordeal of gestating the ISS back in the 80's, a little reality check:<br /><br />Reagan proposed the ISS and then was unwilling to submit budgets for it's full funding. This neccesitated a series of redesigns, each costing upwards of a billion dollars, and each resulting in a smaller and less capable space station.<br /><br />It was pointed out at the time, had we stayed on that course, in less than 50 years the space station would have been a sphere, aproximately 10 millimeters in diameter, and the cost would have been infinite.<br /><br /><br />Anyone proposing any 2nd generation space facility needs to be intimately familiar with this hideous recursive budget hemorhage so as not to repeat it . . . <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

After some thought, I have completed a concept that has been kicking around in my mind for the past several years. Take the standard ISS module. Rather than having the cabling on the outside of the module, put them just inside the meteorite shielding. Ditto for all plumbing and air ducts. This creates an inner hull and a outer hull. The inner hull is pressurized. The outer one stops the meteorites.<br /><br />All connections between modules have to be automatic and disengagable (in case you need to move a module). You also must route lines for power and consumables to each docking port. This allows for any visiting vehicle to pump fuel, oxygen, water, etc aboard with a simple computer command from an astronaut. It also allows the station to power the vehicle as needed. The first module might be flown up with preattached solar and radiator panels, but those would be moved later in construction to a better point that is not in the way later. <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>

 

[scottb50]

I would think, once complete, ISS could go on for a long time. Modules could be added and removed or renovated, as needed. <br /><br />All connections between modules have to be automatic and disengagable (in case you need to move a module)....<br /><br />If every Module, or Segment, attaches the same way to any other Segment it's a simple matter to build the same thing at whatever scale the task requires. A 15x30 foot Segment is identical to any other 15x30 Segment except the area inside the docking system can vary as needed.<br /><br />You can have multiple Segment Modules. A longer tube and more Segments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"ather than having the cabling on the outside of the module, put them just inside the meteorite shielding. Ditto for all plumbing and air ducts. This creates an inner hull and a outer hull. The inner hull is pressurized. The outer one stops the meteorites. "<br /><br />Not viable. Go read up on meteorOID shielding. The shield does not completely stop a meteroid, it absorbs most of the energy but the hull is still needed to stop it completely. Putting utilities in the space between the hull and the shield puts them at risk.<br /><br />As for a common connection, there is one it is a CBM. And it is automatic and can be undone<br /><br />As for make all the utility connection automatic, then be prapared to increase the size of the CBM and it complexity and its cost. Also it means than the connections can only be done in one orientation

 

[nyarlathotep]

It's funny that you say that it's not viable, Jim, since the system being described by willpittenger is exactly what Bigelow orbited last year.<br /><br />Last time I checked Bigelow Aerospace's website, the module was described as being in excellent condition.

 

[jimfromnsf]

not really.

 

[wubblie]

How about a space station with a figure 8 orbit between the earth and moon? The station could ferry cargo to and from the moon and earth in turn as it passes. I'm not sure how stable the orbit would be, but if it wasn't too unstable it could be corrected in flight.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Physically impossible orbit. Apollo was not in a figure 8 orbit, it was a return trajectory.

 

[carvin]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's funny that you say that it's not viable, Jim, since the system being described by willpittenger is exactly what Bigelow orbited last year.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, Bigelow has done that, but keep in mind that they havent docked any modules together yet, so what jim said about "connections can only be done in one orientation" is true, they just haven't encountered that issue yet.

 

[thereiwas]

Don't the Progress supply ships make automatic connections for fuel? Or is that manual hoses?

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Modules could be added and removed or renovated, as needed.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />We have already heard that modules like Unity can't be removed. If you think it could, please describe the process. <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>

 

[scottb50]

It's simple to dock and universal connections allow immediate connection to other Modules, plug in capability.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

True. However, as I understand it, there is no attempt to send those propellants to modules other than the one the Progress docks to. With my proposal, A Progress could dock at any compatible port and still transfer whatever on command. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

And have hazardous propellants coursing through all the modules

 

[dragon04]

Personally, I'm hoping we set our sights somewhere beyond LEO. <br /><br />In terms of resources, where is any benefit of more LEO facilities?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Helium as well as water and waste water, electrical power and data.<br /><br />I would have them coursing through conduits bonded into the Segment structure. Connect to other Segments and resources are shared, as well as protected.<br /><br />I see no need for hazardous materials though. LOX and LH is as bad as it gets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Jim's probably talking about noxious fuels for the stations thrusters, but one of the early uses of VASIMR is supposed to be small thrusters just for this purpose. <br /><br />IIRC there is a proposed test at the ISS of a 25kw VASIMR thruster, but if NASA doesn't want it I'm sure Bigelow would be interested <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

IIRC there is a proposed test at the ISS of a 25kw VASIMR thruster, but if NASA doesn't want it I'm sure Bigelow would be interested...........<br /><br />I'll bring the marshmallows. I don't see a use for that until we get beyond Mars though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We have already heard that modules like Unity can't be removed.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If I'm not mistaken, there is no technical limitation to removing Unity. It's just a question of practicality. You'd have to remove an awful lot of stuff in order to reach Unity, and disconnect a tremendous amount of cabling and coolant lines. It would take weeks of work just to do that, and it would leave you with a basically nonfunctional space station during that time. What's worse, you'd have no place to stash the modules attached to Unity during the move. You could do it if you didn't care what condition the station was in afterwards, which begs the question of what you'd be trying to achieve by moving Unity at all.<br /><br />There is nothing attaching Unity to the rest of the station which cannot be undone. The problem is that its position makes this unthinkable. It would be a bit like swapping out the keystone of an arch when you don't have any scaffolding to hold up the rest of the arch. Sure, you can do it, but it would leave nothing to hold up the rest of the arch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Cryogenic O2 and H2? <br /><br />Have you accounted for all the heaters and to keep the water lines from freezing?<br /><br />Also, how do you verify the connector mates? H2 leaks very easily.<br /><br />It is a waste to put this on every module since most don't need all the utilities. Also it makes any type of node/connector module very complicated.<br /><br />So your launch costs must be very cheap to allow for the additional mass that is not not really needed on every module.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"However, as I understand it, there is no attempt to send those propellants to modules other than the one the Progress docks to."<br /><br />Propellant can go from the Progress to the SM and then the FGB.