You are not logged in.
Offline
Finally, someone is building one.
Someone tell Congress. And then NASA. Congress shouldn't let Russia get ahead in space like they are trying to, and NASA may be able to make a case for a lot more funding.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
a simply INSANE idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
work in space at zero gravity needs several time the physical effort, the problems and the time than do the same things on Earth, also, the orbital manufacturing workforce must be very specialized and with astronauts-like training, last, move to/from the orbital factory a giant number of workers can cost thousands times than move them from their houses to a factory on Earth
the right way is to build everything on Earth and assemble all parts in Space with the same skills shown by the Shuttle and ISS astronauts
unfortunately, this kind of ability will be completely LOST after 2010 when the Shuttles will be retired and no space-assemply-guys (nor "things to assemble") will be sent in Space
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
If the article had reported that Russia wanted to manufacture spacecraft on orbit then it would be "insane" however it just says "build craft there" that surely means assemble them. Russian launch vehicles are too small, so they will have to do inspace assembly for human missions beyond LEO. Good luck to them.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Surely you didn't say
work in space at zero gravity needs several time the physical effort
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So all those images of Astronauts easily pushing massive objects due to them being weightless were all Photoshopped?
Next: gaetanomarano exposes the Moon Missions as an elaborate hoax.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
We've assembled Space Stations in Orbit and even fixed the Hubble Space Telescope. This can be done, its not insane. Russians lack the equivalent of Ares V/Saturn V rocket. They can do multiple launches carrying smaller parts for orbital assembly. If it all works out fine, fair fucks to them!
I reckon some spacecraft that would be useful for tugging large amounts of cargo around the solar system (like asteroids minerals) could only be assembled in orbit, they would be to big to get off the ground.
Offline
Russia says lots of things, but that rarely results in functional hardware. All that oil revenue does seem to be doing them any good.
Anything assembled in pieces small enough to be lofted by a Russian rocket is going to be too small to go beyond lunar space, and too many of them will flex too much on interplanetary trips from acceleration and aerobreaking.
The future is in converting the large diameter spent heavy lift stages like skylab was. Depending on how these are put together on prior to launch, I don't think this will require much in the way of external orbital assembly that can not be supported by the craft itself.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Russia says lots of things, but that rarely results in functional hardware. All that oil revenue does seem to be doing them any good.
Anything assembled in pieces small enough to be lofted by a Russian rocket is going to be too small to go beyond lunar space, and too many of them will flex too much on interplanetary trips from acceleration and aerobreaking.
The future is in converting the large diameter spent heavy lift stages like skylab was. Depending on how these are put together on prior to launch, I don't think this will require much in the way of external orbital assembly that can not be supported by the craft itself.
I can't claim any expertise in the field but I suspect the Russians know more about it than you or I. They've had a very long history of very successful space exploration and operations in LEO.
The funding could disappear in the future, but I hope they can make it work.
Offline
Theres a big difference between a Mir or ISS complex, with modules sticking out at every angle, and a craft designed for interplanetary travel. The acceleration and stresses involved require direct pressure on the center of gravity of the craft. If you tried to fire the ISS off at interplanetary speed, it would probably snap in at least two.
The Russians are capable. But they don't have anything capable now and seem to lack the funding or the political will to get it. What they really need is Energia.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
The Russians don't even have Angara yet... they seem to be arranging their future spaceflight program over assembling a bunch of light-to-medium payloads in LEO.
[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
The Russians don't even have Angara yet... they seem to be arranging their future spaceflight program over assembling a bunch of light-to-medium payloads in LEO.
Not a bad idea since they have that tech atm and it doesn't require any new inventions.
Offline
Unless they are planning to use Hypergolics, such a platform would probably need a cryogenic condenser... which would be very handy for NASA. Or they might use supercooled Oxygen/Methane rockets, which are storeable with little or no boiloff for months to maybe a year or two.
[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