What might ISS's succesor look like?

[jimfromnsf]

"this allows for any visiting vehicle to pump fuel, oxygen, water, etc aboard with a simple computer command from an astronaut."<br /><br />It isn't that simple. Also, do you realize how big, complicated and expensive the docking interface would be.<br /><br />Spend the money elsewhere

 

[thereiwas]

I agree fully automatic connections between modules that make up a space station, and are unlikely to be undocked and redocked very often, is a waste of time and complexity. But I would like to see some solution that did not require EVA to hook things up.<br /><br />Now for itinerant vehicles I think some sort of simpler automatic connections such as the Russians use does make sense, for keeping batteries charged and for propellant resupply (in either direction).

 

[willpittenger]

One reason why you might attempt it would be if Unity developed a leak. Remember what happened to Mir. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

NOT through. They would be outside the pressure hull. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

Every module? Perhaps not quite. You could skip those that don't have or lead to docking ports or places which use the stuff being pumped around. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

Would it make sense to build a lunar orbital station that VSE couuld dock to? If so, describe it. <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]

If Unity developed a unrepairable leak, the ISS is finished. There is no replacement for it and it is the path to the russian segment.

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />If we could get new modules up there, would it be worthwhile to replace existing modules? If so, what do you do with the old ones? If the Unity node had to be replaced, how would we do so? What could not be replaced?<br /><br />Me:<br />Iss is a pretty functional station and has served us pretty well, however...it has some drawbacks inherant in its design. One of which is that IMO, I think less attention was paid to the kind of modularity which made Mir so successful. I cannot say for sure if the node or other modules could be replaced if they had to be. I'm not sure the station can actually be expanded beyond the planned operational configuration. Not much has been publicised on that and from what I have seen. It looks like a module replacement would be a difficult proposition at best.<br /><br />Ares V variants would probably be able to handle the large payloads if for no other reason. If large payloads are to be developed, Ares will likely be the LV of choice for taking them to orbit. This would be a more cost effective solution than relying on shuttle for example. One of ISS biggest cost problems was the cost of getting all those pieces to orbit because the shuttle was utilized for the job. It was said shuttle "C" would be too expensive and yet, we spent the money for many additional shuttle flights to get ISS up.<br /><br />What might ISS successor look like? If NASA builds it, probably a combination of current Mir/ISS configuration and modularity. Taking the best of both programs...an example being the modularity of Mir and the layout, particularly solar arrays, of ISS.<br /><br />Nearly two decades ago I developed a proposal for stations that were launched by shuttle derived vehicles. A shuttle "C" in which the "C" element is actually part of the payload. In this way, you can have several "C" launches putting a large station together...or several single purpose stations. At the time I wrote it, the Freedom station required 17 shuttle assembly flight <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>

 

[dreada5]

<b>Have you guys seen this:</b><br /><br />http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/index.htm <br /><br /><br /><br />I like the following sections:<br /><br />5.3. THE "DUAL KEEL" SPACE STATION - BRIDGE TO OTHER WORLDS [1986]<br />5.5. THE "DUAL KEEL" SPACE STATION [1985]<br />5.6.6 SPACE STATION "SPACEDOCK"<br /><br />Here's an interesting quote:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />The Space Operations Center was proposed by NASA’s Johnson Spaceflight Center in 1979. Like most other space station studies from the mid/late 1970s its primary mission was the assembly and servicing of large spacecraft in Earth orbit -- not science!<br /><br />The completed Space Operations Center also would have contained a satellite servicing & assembly facility and several laboratory modules. Even with this revised approach, however, the cost of the SOC program had grown to $9 billion. Another problem was Space Operations Center's primary mission: spacecraft assembly and servicing. The likely users (commercial satellite operators and telecommunications companies) were not really interested in the kind of large geostationary space platforms proposed by NASA. By 1983, the only enthusiastic users for NASA's space station plans were scientists working in the fields of microgravity research and life sciences. Their needs would dictate future space station design although NASA's 1984 station plans did incorporate a SOC-type spacecraft servicing facility as well.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />

 

[dreada5]

Dual-keel ISS:

 

[dreada5]

Lunar Transfer Vehicle section:

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Whoa!! <i>Battlestar Galactica</i> all over again!<br /><br />KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid - applies to space stations as well as many other fields.<br /><br />The ISS' successors will be smaller, simpler <i>independent</i> stations each dedicated for a particular task and pragmatically designed, and not a 'tries to do everything and therefore does nothing particularly well', 'all in one and therefore none for all if anything goes wrong', 'give everyone a role' status symbol.

 

[dreada5]

Actually I think you're right - I think if Bigelow (or similar newcomer) is successful, we won't see another ISS-style station with metallic modules costing hundreds of billions. Rather, in 10-20 years time, they'll be several individual stations in LEO - with specific purposes eg. science, space tourism, manufacturing, fuel depots etc.<br /><br />And they'll probably belong to smaller organisations rather one large international community.<br /><br />I guess this is what I have in mind, with the module interiors looking very different to what ISS interiors look like.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=696306&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Whoa!! Battlestar Galactica all over again!</font>/i><br /><br />Those aren't space stations, those are jobs programs.<br /><br />You have to admit though, de-orbiting those things would look spectacular.</i>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>space tourism<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I should point out that NASA never intended that ISS have tourists. That appears to be something the Russians came up with to fund their launches. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>he ISS' successors will be smaller, simpler independent stations each dedicated for a particular task and pragmatically designed, and not a 'tries to do everything and therefore does nothing particularly well', 'all in one and therefore none for all if anything goes wrong', 'give everyone a role' status symbol.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The problem with that approach is that you need more astronauts. Could actually end up being more expensive -- not less. <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>

 

[dreada5]

There's been talk of some of those stations being mostly unmanned, robotic/automated environments for running "undisturbed" long-term experiments... visted by astronauts infrequently.

 

[qso1]

Sorry it took so long to get back.<br /><br />dreada5:<br />Have you guys seen this:<br /><br />Me:<br />Oh yeh, I recall the dual keel which was preceeded by the power tower concept. ISS is actually the end result of decades of bickering over budgets that gutted what the station could be...or be expanded into. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There's been talk of some of those stations being mostly unmanned, robotic/automated environments for running "undisturbed" long-term experiments... visted by astronauts infrequently.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That could be nothing more than a unpressurized capsule launched by a ELV and retrieved (if needed) like Genesis was in Utah. <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>

 

[solarspot]

I have caught myself daydreaming so many times about small manned stations or spacecraft servicing sattelites in GSO. Single largest hurdle I'm aware of could be transporting the crew that extra distance. Just as soon as I get my own 7.4B USD... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That could be nothing more than a unpressurized capsule launched by a ELV and retrieved (if needed) like Genesis was in Utah.</font>/i><br /><br />That is true, but it depends on how much supporting infrastructure you want to use. For example, an orbital platform could include the computer racks, communication and monitoring equipment, computer controls (including robotic manipulating arms if necessary), temperature management, power and power management, etc. Flying all that up once and reusing it each time would probably make a lot of sense for anything slightly complicated.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"That is true, but it depends on how much supporting infrastructure you want to use. For example, an orbital platform could include the computer racks, communication and monitoring equipment, computer controls (including robotic manipulating arms if necessary), temperature management, power and power management, etc. Flying all that up once and reusing it each time would probably make a lot of sense for anything slightly complicated."<br /><br />Not really, since the delivery spacecraft has to have most of these things (comm, power, thermal control) anyway. It would be simpler to be a standalone spacecraft vs having to rendezvous, docking and exchange the "samples" It could be pressurized or unpressuized<br /><br />P.S. There is little need for an arm.

 

[dreada5]

On a sidenote - I've often thought what a waste it is to hurl so much highly processed material into LEO, serve its purpose, and then simply incinerated as it falls back down the gravity well to earth.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be cool if we perhaps had a something like an ion-drive transporter that could shuttle back and forth slinging large bits of obsolete hardware towards Luna/Mars to be collected, recycled/reused in decades to come? But I digress.

 

[willpittenger]

What would you expect to be able to reuse? Everything there would be obsolete. You might find the structures intact, but I think that a certain private company would call them obsolete too. <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>

 

[dreada5]

I was thinking of reprocessed metals and plastics.<br /><br />And all those mechanical components that will have the same structure 20 years from now.<br /><br />