You are not logged in.
Won't we have to rebuild or modify Pad 39 to accomdate any changes made for the SDV? If so, then we end up rebuilding Pad 39 only to later build an entirely new supporting infrastructure for the HLLV for Mars. That dosen't seem prudent.
Offline
And no more ISS. No More ISS.
The ISS is worthless. Worth-Less. The state of being without net value sufficent to justify its exsistance. Its gotta go!
Why?
-Small crew. Even in completed form, due to lack of living space. This isn't going to change without Shuttle.
-Age. By the time its done, it'll be worn out! Its already falling apart around the edges.
-Orbital inclination. It takes near half as much power to get from the ISS orbit to an equitorial orbit as it does to get there. Launch to the ISS from equitorial incurs a 1/3rd payload mass penalty. You aren't going to haul enough fuel to get from ISS to equitorial with tiny 2MT loads of fuel!
-Up and down mass of pressureized materials. Basicly, there is no way to get stuff back down more than a few kilos at a time, and Progress + ATV is hardly enough to keep the thing up there. Progress with its dinky 2.5MT and ATV with its paltry 9MT just don't cut it.
-ISS has too much vibration for sensitive experiments.
-ISS has minimal micrometeoroid protection, except for those little sheet metal "shields" here and there.
-ISS is still not planned to have a good quasi-CLESS system.
-And the best part... Russian ISS hatches are too small to accomodate ISS science/cargo racks!
Just say NO to ISS... If you need a station, go with "Option C"
[http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spas1993.htm]http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spas1993.htm
Edit: I'd also like to mention that China doesn't have a quote/unquote "fresh aproach," its pretty much a copy of the Russian way of doing things, only with lots less money and less reliable rockets.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Won't we have to rebuild or modify Pad 39 to accomdate any changes made for the SDV? If so, then we end up rebuilding Pad 39 only to later build an entirely new supporting infrastructure for the HLLV for Mars. That dosen't seem prudent.
Zubrin (and company) designed Ares to use the existing Pad-39 without modification. If the RS-68s are moved to in-line some minor modification will be needed perhaps.
But a Delta/Atlas derived HLLV will be "clean sheet" and isn't Delta transported horizontally and raised up like Soyuz? New crawler, new VAB and new Pad 39.
Offline
We're still modifying Pad 39 then, only to build new infrastructure for the Mars HLLV.
Dosen't Delta or Atlas launch from their own ports? Why does it have to launch from Florida?
Offline
Okay, GCNRevenger, I am converted. Terminate ISS today.
If NASA / ESA / RSA believes we need a space station, build one with 4 or 5 throws from an SDV at 28 degrees. I betcha you could include ALL of the grounded ESA modules within that payload manifest and even replace the stuff at 51 degrees that gets sold off to Hilton or Hyatt or Space Adventures.
I also betcha that by using SDV and ISS-2 modules such as Zvedza-2 (with stationkeeping) you could build ISS-2 for less than the current combined STS / ISS budget. Subtract the sale proceeds from ISS-1 and its quite a deal.
Or just build a lunar base by 2014 instead, with ESA / RSA cooperation.
Offline
We're still modifying Pad 39 then, only to build new infrastructure for the Mars HLLV.
Dosen't Delta or Atlas launch from their own ports? Why does it have to launch from Florida?
google the infrastructure for Delta IV. I doubt the assembly building could handle a Delta derived HLLV. Or the tractors or the existing launch pads.
What are the range safety issues of launching HLLVs from Vandenberg?
= = =
Pad 39 needs NO modifications for the offset engines of Ares, which is Mars capable (sort of). In-line engines might need minor modifications.
Offline
The launch table and the flame trenches are the only things that would need changes for a "Shuttle B" style modification.
Say you wanted to build a new space station... big enough for any concieveable experiment and room left over for commertial ventures on the side... time to think big. Say we can make a TransHab module about 6M wide and 20M long uninflated with the endport sticking in the nose cone plus a thruster cluster on the other. Then lets say that the internal structure was tailored such that it was collapseable...that is, the length of the module can double when fully extended. Not unreasonable for an empty module. How much volume would that buy you?
Four thousand five hundred pressureized cubic meters A little under quadruple the volume! In One Flight. Then the second SDV launch would contain a traditional aluminum docking structure with everything else;
-4 ports for capsules/cargo modules
-4 ports for ISS-sized lab/logistics/etc modules
-4 initial with room for 6 ISS-sized solar pannels and 4 radiators
-Built-in airlock near the end
-Logistics facility with LSS
-Reboost engine and tank farm on the end, possibly with ion drive instead of chemical(?).
NOW you have a space station... in two launches.
Edit: Somthing like THIS [http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/o/optionc6.jpg]http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/o/optionc6.jpg
Except with a giant huge mega 8-story TransHab on the bare end and more docking ports.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Okay, uncle.
But if the Europeans want all their existing modules attached to this thing, that will take a few more launches.
Otherwise, your main point is well taken and is as true today as it was 10 years ago and 15 years ago. ???
= = =
By the way, with SDV couldn't this new station be built well within the current STS / ISS budget?
Offline
Meh, donate some space in the megamodule and offer to carry some science gear at a discount.
The big issue to making such a mega-station is how to get people and cargo to & from... Take CEV and gut it of all the manned equipment would be a start, maybe make an up-only expendable version with no heat shield and extra cargo volume.
I think that such a station would cost quite a bit to build, probably more than Shuttle + ISS would cost for the last few years of the program if add the cost of the SDV, but you would certainly get alot more space station for the money.
Edit: Such a CEV would definatly be a 6-seater... if possible, it might be modified to ride a Russian Onega booster?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Edit: Such a CEV would definatly be a 6-seater... if possible, it might be modified to ride a Russian Onega booster?
What about [http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm]this thing?
Offline
Well frankly, I don't think the Russians can do Klipper on their current budget. Maybe if the ESA threw them some big-time dollars, otherwise I wouldn't bet on them doing more than finishing the Onega booster... which might allow a heavier Progress-C to be built though.
A CEV with four seats might do, if you could fly it often. A reuseable capsule thats easy to recover, a quick bolt on heat shield and prepacked parachutes on a single-CCB EELV or Onega rocket flying often enough might meet the "human cargo" needs. Combination of a cargo-only CEV plus Progress-C plus ATV could move nontrivial masses... all of which would need new docking mechanisms for larger hatches.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
What about the Russian Angara? [http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikal.html]http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikal.html
first launch planned for 2006 in 2003, eventually to be able to lift 22 to LEO... Have those plans been scrapped?
Offline
Well frankly, I don't think the Russians can do Klipper on their current budget. Maybe if the ESA threw them some big-time dollars, otherwise I wouldn't bet on them doing more than finishing the Onega booster... which might allow a heavier Progress-C to be built though.
No disagreements there. The Russians have a lot of creativity (the Kliper being a great idea, an incremental improvement over the current technology and representative of what OSP should have been) but not a lot of money. Without external financing, any future Russian aeropace project (expect perhaps for this maneuverable ICBM warhead they claim to possess) is essentially vaporware.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
The Angara booster will almost certainly be limited to military polar-orbit and commertial GEO orbital launches, since it will be launched from Plestek in Russia at a high inclination.
Military flights need high inclination, so thats ideal, and it achieves GEO orbit by actually looping payloads around the Moon. Unfortunatly, it cannot access Equitorial orbits without a very large expendature of fuel, probably cutting its payload in half.
Now if you could launch it from French Guiana, then you might have somthing. Its also unclear if it will be cheap enough to compete with Zenit or Soyuz/Onega.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
