Will the ISS do anything but long duration human experiments

[askold]

"The ISS requirement is definite."<br /><br />On April 29, Griffin wrote: "I have initiated an Exploration Systems Architecture Study. The study team will begin immediately and must complete its activities by mid-July to support a number of key Agency decisions."<br /><br />"must complete" is pretty definite. It's August 25 - where's the study?

 

[tap_sa]

He didn't specify the year.<br /><br />(I know, lame...)

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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)!</font>/i><br /><br />Future dates and numbers are often arbitrary and contradictory.<br /><br />For example, the shuttle orbiters are either called "young" or "old" depending on what story a person is trying to tell. I believe the orbiters were designed for 100 flights and 10 years. You can call the orbiter "young" by saying it has less than a third of the number of flights it was designed for. Prior to Columbia, O'Keefe was talking about flying the orbiters until 2020. But you can call the orbiters "old" by pointing out the are about twice as old (in terms of years) than they were designed for.<br /><br />Whether you are talking about the 90 sols for the MERs, flying the shuttles until 2020, or decommissioning for the ISS at a given date, these numbers are fluid and can change depending on technical performance, politics, and other factors.</i>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The study team will begin immediately and must complete its activities ..."</font><br /><br />The study team finished up their work on July 15th. It was then handed over to the Make Up a Document team. MUD finished their work on August 4th and handed it over to the Marketing Initial Systems Studies team. MISS took the document and cut out all of the overly technical data and any words over three syllables. On August 23rd, they handed it over to the Powerpoint Utilization Narration Team to convert the MISS-abridged document into a further-abridged set of Powerpoint slides with lots of pretty colors, graphs, and pictures to show politicians.<br /><br />We'll see it once PUNT is finished in a month or two. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[askold]

Your post reminds me of a recent SpaceDaily article subtitled: Bureaucrats have been handing out art prizes to aerospace corporations to dream up space fantasies for decades....<br /><br />I love those artists renditions of people flying around in space like Flash Gordon.

 

[no_way]

You know, one day its going to be taken a step further and you'll gonna see a picture called "An artists rendition of a paper study of a next cool space project"

 

[wvbraun]

The study is complete. However there are still disagreements to be worked out so it hasn't been released yet. Apparently Griffin wants more money and it's unclear if the OMB is ready to greenlight his request. We'll know in a month or so...<br /><br />As to the ISS requirement: Assuming the ISS doesn't get dumped into the ocean that requirement is definite. Of course you can continue to pretend that it's still an open question while pointing to outdated documents to make your point if that makes you happy...

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">As to the ISS requirement: Assuming the ISS doesn't get dumped into the ocean that requirement is definite.</font>/i><br /><br />From Michael Griffin's editorial to the New York Times:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But we will <i><b>no longer adhere to a plan</b></i> requiring a fixed number of shuttle flights. ... We have carefully reconsidered the station assembly sequence, and if we use the shuttle fleet in a disciplined, measured fashion over the next five years, we can <i><b>essentially</b></i> complete that assembly.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/l21nasa.html<br /><br />It sounds like the definition of "complete" is whatever they have when the last shuttle returns home on or before 2010. Griffin seems to be saying they will commit to a "best effort", but that "best effort" is constrained by several new factors that were not part of the plan prior to 2003 (e.g., additional safety rules, shift in budgets to VSE). There is a lot of wiggle room in statements like these.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

Not unusually, I am somewhat confused here. It may even be that askold for once is at least partially correct.<br /><br />The confusion comes in the definition of what the CEV is going to do, and what the CXV is going to do. Now I am NOT stating other than something that I have as an impression, and I am perhaps seeking information just as much as giving it out. So do try to not rip me to pieces here mrmorris!<br /><br />It may just be an impression, but from what I can gather, it is the CXV currently being designed by t/space (perhaps amoung others) that is going to be the vehicle for taking NASA people from the Earth to LEO. Expecially as t/space has stated that they can do it so cheaply.<br /><br />That leaves the CEV (evidently currently being designed by Boeing and/or LM amoung possibly others) to be the ferry type of craft to take NASA people to and from at least the moon, and even possibly landing on the moon. Mars is so far off I don't really think it is a serious consideration at this time. <br /><br />If this is true then it would be only the CXV that would be also (not exclusively, of course as it would be used at many sites to ferry people to an from LEO) used to ferry NASA people to and from the ISS, which is indeed not in a position for placing people on the moon.<br /><br />Then the CEV would indeed not be going to the ISS, but would be used to go to higher orbits, or on to the moon?<br /><br />I am more than willing to have this cleared up!<br /><br />I did read it on another thread that the CXV is very possibly Burt Rutan's vehicle for placing ordinary paying tourists into LEO. If, so it is indeed evry cleaver of him! Let NASA pay for the basic development of the vehicle, and then use the vehicle to go on and make a profit! If so, then NASA really IS supporting pure private industry efforts now, are they not?

 

[askold]

Partially correct?!? Oh, please tell me what part so that I can savor the moment.<br /><br />I hope it's not the CXV part because I've never heard of it ...

 

[cuddlyrocket]

My understanding, based on nothing more than reading publicly available material, is that the CEV is indeed designed to be the command and return module for trips to the Moon and possibly beyond.<br /><br /><i>However</i>, it will also be designed so that it is <i>capable</i> of taking astronauts to the ISS. This is to ensure that NASA - as a government agency - always has a means of getting into LEO and to the ISS.<br /><br /><i>However</i> (II <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />), the CEV will be over-designed for the (relatively) simple task of going to the ISS. So NASA is prepared to buy any other US craft (eg the CXV) that is capable of performing that task safely and more cheaply than the CEV.

 

[askold]

From an engineering perspective, overkill is not good. More capability means more parts, more complexity and more failure points.<br /><br />The original CEV requirements did not include going to the ISS. Adding that requirement will make the CEV more compicated and less reliable. That is an indisputable engineering fact. <br /><br />My guess is that Griffin added this requirement for political reasons.

 

[rubicondsrv]

"My guess is that Griffin added this requirement for political reasons"<br /><br />While I dispute that the descision to include ISS docking capabilities in the new CEV requirements is a political descision do not under estimate the power of politics in government funded projects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[toothferry]

<font color="yellow">Will the ISS do anything but long duration human ... 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. </font> <br /><br />yes, ISS's primary experiment is to see if humans can work together, internationally, in an engament of mutual accomplishment demonstrating engineering might in a fasion far different than is done during multinational engamentments (taking over, destruction, war etc.) <br /><br />I wonder about this grand experiment, can we make it work or did NASA bite off more than it could chew... again?? I hope we can make it work. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Not unusually, I am somewhat confused here.</font>/i><br /><br />We are all confused because we are working in a vacuum (a little space humor <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />).<br /><br />There have been a wide variety of designs and concepts of operations floated, and nothing has been chosen. One person's definition of a "CEV" is not the same as the next person's. Unitl a design, operation, and naming scheme has been fully established (will this ever happen?), there is bound to be some confusion.<br /><br />For example, in the t/Space design, the CXV is like a capsule and is optimized for traveling from and back to Earth's surface through an atmosphere. It does not go beyond LEO. The t/Space CEV is optimized for travel in a vacuum, and goes from LEO to the Lunar surface and then back to LEO. The CXV is used to ferry the astronauts to the CEV in LEO and then to bring them back down.<br /><br />In other models, the "CEV" is essentially the Apollo Command Module, and can go by itself to ISS or can mate to other elements (brought up by a HLV) and be part of a larger craft that goes to the Moon (perhaps to the surface, perhaps not).</i>

 

[krrr]

"The original CEV requirements did not include going to the ISS. Adding that requirement will make the CEV more compicated and less reliable. That is an indisputable engineering fact."<br /><br />Going to the ISS means modest maneuverability and the ability to dock. Do you think the CEV shouldn't have these capabilities?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The original CEV requirements did not include going to the ISS. ... My guess is that Griffin added this requirement for political reasons.</font>/i><br /><br />Many in Congress were upset that the US was going to spend upwards of another $60 billion to complete and operate ISS through 2016 but have no independent means to access it following the retirement of the shuttle by 2010. This was (not suprisingly) unacceptable to many who controlled NASA's money.<br /><br />You could call this "political" but much of NASA is "political". The entire Apollo program was driven by politics. The ISS was and still is driven by politics. Politics and NASA (especially manned space exploration) are inextricably linked.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Going to the ISS means modest maneuverability and the ability to dock. Do you think the CEV shouldn't have these capabilities?</font>/i><br /><br />Depends on what the design and operations for the system ends up being. For example, in one model floated the entire "CEV" launched fully manned from an in-line SDHLV and went straight to the Moon and back with no Earth or Lunar orbiting rendezvous. If this model is chosen, adding docking with the ISS would be a major departure in design.<br /><br />In other designs, the space "system" that takes humans to the Moon are put into LEO on two launches (an unmanned HLV and a crewed SRB). The system going up on the SRB would need maneuverability and docking capability because it needs to dock with the rest of the elements to go to the Moon. In this case (depending on the design), docking with the ISS and docking with the rest of the Lunar spacecraft may be essentially the same. That is, no changes are needed to add the ISS mission requirement.</i>