Will the ISS do anything but long duration human experiments

[askold]

Will the CEV go to the ISS - that seems doubtful at this time.<br /><br />Will the ISS help us get to the moon or Mars - doesn't seem so.<br /><br />I've combed the NASA sites for information on the ISS and it seems that the 2 guys are just maintaining the thing and checking each other's bone mass.<br /><br />We could have done that on Mir.

 

[frodo1008]

The ISS is far, far from being finished, and you are asking what it is useful for?? For once in your life do at least try to make use of information and a little logic!<br /><br />I am no where near as well versed in using the search techniques of the internet (most of my information is obtained from books) as you probably are. Now, there may no longer be such sites available, but some time ago even I was able to find a great deal of infromation of what the laboratories of the ISS were going to be doing! So, once again ALL you are doing here is to try and get the negativists together to back up your own narrow view of the future! <br /><br />I will admit however, that like the extreme conservatives over on free space, that I do have to admire your persistence, even if it is in the wrong cause!

 

[wvbraun]

"Will the CEV go to the ISS - that seems doubtful at this time."<br /><br />Why doubtful? The CEV is intended for flights to the ISS, there is no question about it.

 

[askold]

I think this is a pretty good source of information:<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107490main_FY06_Direction.pdf<br /><br />NASA's current strategic direction plan. Strategic objective #8 has to do with the ISS - studying how the space environment affects human health.<br /><br />I'm going to make a bold prediction - within 6 months, NASA will determine that it can't make the shuttle safe to fly, that the ISS is now sufficiently built out to support objective #8 and that there is no need to build the remaining modules.<br /><br />That'll release $5Billion / year NASA money for other purposes.

 

[askold]

"The CEV is intended for flights to the ISS, there is no question about it."<br /><br />Not according to this NASA site:<br /><br />http://www.onenasa.nasa.gov/NEWS/Questions/Exploration_CEV.htm#1<br /><br />7. Will CEV be used for ISS crew?<br /><br />The current CEV baseline does not include requirements for crew delivery to ISS. However, NASA is performing a trade study analysis in order to determine the impact to CEV design and ISS interfaces should the CEV be employed to provide a crew transportation option to and from ISS. The requirement for that analysis is part of the CEV RFP. In addition, the CEV RFP, released March 1, 2005, will require a more detailed analyses of this issue. A CEV with access to ISS would have an inherent evacuation capability but not rescue capability. This is considered to be cost prohibitive within current budget. If future decisions support CEV access to ISS, the current target date for this capability is 2014. Acceleration of that date is currently being studied to determine feasibility, and well as the associated cost and risk.<br /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

You're ill informed. Griffin has said that the CEV will definitely be used to support the ISS. That NASA site is simply outdated.

 

[askold]

OK - then inform me. Can you supply a link to Griffin's statement?<br /><br />It's hard for me to understand why NASA would be sending out RFP's that are in conflict with Griffin's thinking.

 

[haywood]

Hey askold, if you are so "bold", why not do what grooble did and put money on it?<br />I'm sure we'd all revell in your loss the next time Discovery goes up.<br />These "bandwagon" guys are starting to give me a pain in the butt.<br />

 

[askold]

I don't know who grooble is, but I'll make this pledge. If I'm wrong, I'll donate $50 to the American Red Cross (my favorite charity).<br /><br />Here's how I think things will play out: the Louisiana factory where the tank is built will be asked by NASA to certify that the tank will not shed insulation. The factory will not agree to make any such guarantee. NASA will say that if the factory cannot certify the tank then NASA cannot guarantee that the shuttle is safe to fly. NASA will say that the ISS can already do the experiments that it needs to do - long-term effects of space on people - so no additional shuttle missions will be necessary.<br /><br />Now, realize, this is just my assessment of the situation as I see it. I am not the head of NASA, so I cannot cause any of this to happen. Also, I don't "wish" for this to happen, and if I could cause things to happen just by wishing for them, I wouldn't be talking to you guys with that blonde waiting for me in the other room ....

 

[wvbraun]

"Can you supply a link to Griffin's statement?"<br /><br />No, I'm too lazy to dig it up. Do it yourself. It's there. The RFP is outdated by the way. You obviously haven't been following the CEV project very closely...

 

[askold]

OK, I'll save you the work - here's the CEV RFP on the NASA site:<br /><br />http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/sol.cgi?acqid=113638#Amendment%2002<br /><br />I don't know how you can say the RFP is outdated when the site states: "Any inconsistency between the printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the electronic copy residing on the NAIS server."<br /><br />If the RFP does not represent the vehicle NASA intends to build, then the whole process is totally out of control.

 

[wvbraun]

As I said: You're obviously ill informed and too lazy (?) to find out the facts for yourself so I'll help you: There will be a Call for Improvements soon which will be based on the findings of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study begun in April by Griffin. The CFI document will include a requirement for the CEV to be able to service the space station.

 

[askold]

So, while the original RFP's are still being evaluated, "improvements" are already being called for ....<br /><br />Isn't that what got the shuttle design in the trouble it's in today - the vehicle has to do everything so it ends up so complicated that it's unreliable.

 

[frodo1008]

The only thing more complicated for the CEV in getting to the ISS would be the weight penalty that would be paid for the more northern orbital inclination of the ISS. Otherwise, it would just be another orbital link up, just like many others that the CEV is going to be asked to perform. And even this slight problem can be avoided by shiping one or more CEV's that are going to be slated to go to the ISS to the Russians for launch from Russia!<br /><br />The main complexities that you refer to (and I would like to think that you know this as well as myself) were built into the shuttle by the need for NASA's cooperation with the Air Forces pull in congress! There is no such need (at least not yet) for NASA at this time!<br /><br />Before you go on with your campaign here, please go either to the library, or a good bookstore, and there check out or buy some of the truly excellent books on these subjects. Go home and READ them, then come back here with some true contributions and knowledge!<br /><br />I really don't think you are a bad guy, just badly misinformed about things. And the internet IS NOT such a good sourse of this kind of material!

 

[askold]

Well, it may be all moot anyway. The target for the CEV to link up with ISS is 2014, and the ISS decommissioning target is 2016. And the ISS will only be finished in 2010 (we hope)! It seems like such a waste.<br /><br />Also, the ISS is not in a good orbital position to stop on the way to the moon or Mars, so why would the CEV want to go there anyway?<br /><br />Caveat: the above is based on information found on the unreliable Internet.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You're obviously ill informed <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think we are all ill informed. I dont think anyone at NASA knows for certain what exactly will happen with CEV and other future projects.<br />The planners may plan all they want but there are politics, pork and lots of "disagreeing offices, interested parties" etc etc.<br /><br />If NASA were a monarchy, it would be all a lot simpler.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"OK - then inform me. Can you supply a link to Griffin's statement? "</font><br /><br />I can. It took a really complicated Google search to find. Had to use the following three bizarre keywords: <b>griffin CEV iss</b><br /><br />A statement from Michael Griffin<br /><br /><i>"Likewise, when I arrived at NASA, the role of the CEV in supporting the International Space Station (ISS) was not clear. While the recently established Exploration Systems Architecture Study team will carefully define the CEV's requirements, I have specifically directed that the CEV will visit the ISS."</i>

 

[askold]

Well, here's a NASA site that says there is a decommissioning target in 2016:<br /><br />1. As you are defining the exploration architecture, does the trade space provide consideration for using ISS as a location for staging or further assembly of cargo destined to go on to the moon or to mars?<br /><br />ISS is important for conducting research and technology development that supports implementing the exploration vision. However, the trade space does not currently include using the ISS as a moon or Mars cargo staging location. Current planning calls for ISS decommissioning to occur in 2016 and Exploration activities related to the moon and Mars will occur beyond that timeframe. Furthermore, ISS is not in an efficient orbit to support assembly and departure of spacecraft to the moon or Mars.<br /><br /><br />I agree with "no_way" - all this stuff is still a moving target for NASA so you certainly don't know exactly what's going to happen.

 

[wvbraun]

"The target for the CEV to link up with ISS is 2014"<br /><br />Wrong (again). Griffin wants the CEV to be operational by 2010/11. Why don't you just read up on the topic (which you clearly haven't done so far) and stop wasting out time...

 

[askold]

My information is from published information on NASA sites that is not more than 6 months old.<br /><br />You're going to repudiate these published facts with "Griffin wants ..."?!?<br /><br />Mike Griffin has been the head of NASA for all of 4 months. What's his track record for getting what he "wants"? Didn't you create a post titled "Rollout Plan for Griffin's Architecture Stumbles"? What's your confidence that Griffin gets what he wants?

 

[wvbraun]

"My information is from published information on NASA sites that is not more than 6 months old."<br /><br /><br />It's outdated. Period. <br /><br />With every post of yours you look more like a complete idiot. Do some research on Griffin then you'll know the answer to your question.

 

[askold]

Here's what NASA says about the CEV-ISS hookup:<br /><br />"If future decisions support CEV access to ISS, the current target date for this capability is 2014. Acceleration of that date is currently being studied to determine feasibility, and well as the associated cost and risk."<br /><br />It is a fact that NASA made this statement at the beginning of this year.<br /><br />At the current time, the CEV is no more than a handful of design concepts, with requirements in flux and funding not assured.<br /><br />If you think that you can just ignore all this and pick an arbitrarily earlier completion date just because "Griffin wants" it, then you truly know nothing about engineering or the project development process.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This stuff is changing by the hour<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Exactly, and nobody has definite answers. Calling eachother idiots while quoting different websites is pretty childish.

 

[wvbraun]

"Exactly, and nobody has definite answers."<br /><br />The ISS requirement is definite.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The ISS requirement is definite. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Impossible. The future of ISS is dependent on shuttle flight schedule which at present is indefinite. Thus, future of ISS is indefinite.