International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

kbd512 · 2015-03-17 17:57:31

RobertDyck wrote:

No, not inflatable. I said several times, used ADEPT. NASA is already working on a carbon fibre heat shield that can be deployed like an umbrella. It's specifically designed for payloads larger than Curiosity.

Has this carbon fiber heat shield ever flown in space? If so, could you post a link?

RobertDyck wrote:

Do you work for Boeing or Lockheed-Martin? Why do you obsess over stupid ideas? What are you trying to sell?

Why is designing a capsule so small we can test it to perfection on small sounding rockets a stupid idea?

Which do you think will cost more money, be more complicated, and take significantly longer to design and test?

A one person capsule capable of descending to Earth from ISS in LEO or to Mars from a MTV in LMO or a far larger four to six person special purpose MAV that has to be landed using technology that has never flown in space, so far as I know, powered by engines that don't exist?

I'd be absolutely shocked if this multi-person MAV costs less than five billion to develop. Why immediately go for the most expensive and technically challenging solution?

The one person capsule has other potential uses, as previously noted, but the MAV will only be useful for landing on Mars or perhaps the moon.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-17 19:18:41

I am going to staart a new topic just for what has been discussed in the last page of posts...

Smallest Human Ascent or Descent Lander for Mars Or Earth

Please continue there...

RobertDyck · 2015-03-18 04:56:23

GW Johnson: You're arguments sound like "Don't go into space at all. Ever!" That is what politicians will hear from this. You argued to test ISPP. Yes, testing is necessary. Dr. Zubrin didn't want any sort of robotic sample return mission, because he wanted humans to Mars. His focus was to argue with those who don't want any humans in space at all, ever. But my point was our experience with Apollo proved everything has to be thoroughly tested first. And since human lives will depend on ISPP, that has to be tested first. I was highly critical of NASA when they "forgot" about the Mars 2001 Lander. Someone converted it into Mars Phoenix by removing all engineering experiments in favour of more science. Both the radiation sensor and ISPP Precursor were removed. Curiosity has a radiation sensor, so that has been replaced. As you pointed out, the radiation sensor on Mars Odyssey, in orbit around Mars, is nice, but estimates of how much radiation the Mars atmosphere will block are just that, estimates. We needed ground truth. That's very valid, and the radiation sensor of Curiosity has replaced the one on the Mars 2001 Lander. However, the other experiment removed was the ISPP Precursor. It was supposed to collect CO2 from Mars atmosphere, so would test in actual Mars conditions, and convert that to oxygen. It wouldn't have the Sabatier Reactor, but would have the oxygen generator. ISPP requires both, but collection and purification of CO2 to feed the Sabatier was a critical step that would be tested by the ISPP Precursor. My point with Dr. Zurbin was we also need to test the entire system, end-to-end, on Mars. The best way to do that is a robotic Mars sample-return mission. As a technology demonstrator. And I pointed out that if done as something very simple, either with a collection arm like Viking or Phoenix, or a tiny rover like Sojourner, then the entire mission could fit within the budget of a Scout class mission. And it's critical to test this before committing human lives. This discussion with Dr. Zubrin was one-on-one in a hallway at a Mars Society convention. In the end I got him to grudgingly accept the idea of a robotic Mars sample-return mission, but only as a technology demonstrator for ISPP. But now you, Mr. Johnson, are arguing for testing. What? Isn't that what I said?

Let's look at this. First was Dr. Zubrin's brass-board test in his workshop. That was funded by a NASA SBIR contract. Next we need a complete, full-scale, end-to-end test done in a ground lab test. Then we need ISPP Precursor on Mars. Then we need a robotic Mars sample-return mission. And finally, we need to send the ERV unmanned ahead of astronauts. Only when propellant tanks are completely full and ready to return to Earth do astronauts depart Earth. That's lots. What more do you want?

You also mentioned dust, and Apollo experience with lunar dust contamination. That's why I push for an MCP spacesuit. Janyce Wynter is an aerospace engineer and member of the Mars Society. She pointed out to me that an MCP suit is machine washable. Her argument was dust contamination could be dealt with simply by washing. Great idea! And back in the early days of the Mars Society a medical doctor who specializes in decompression sickness told me of MCP and Dr. Paul Webb's work. That was Tam Czarnik, from North Dakota. Great ideas. Let's use it. I don't want to take credit for this; others who are more qualified than I have told me about this. But that means we have a plan, so let's proceed. Yes, spacesuits require a lot of work and a lot of testing. Yes, they will have to be tested on ISS first. A lot of testing. After all, ISPP is something we can do ahead of time before astronauts leave Earth, but a spacesuit is something they will depend on every second they're outside on Mars. So thorough testing in space on ISS. Just do it!

Astronaut food? Really? Astronaut food? That's another example of a contractor scamming for money. The only issue with astronaut food is they tried to prepare finished meals that don't require any cooking or other preparation. The food industry has long developed means to store food for multiple years or decades. Most stored food requires some sort of cooking. Once cooked it won't keep as long. That means any Mars mission will require a kitchen. Yes, this should be tested on ISS. That means the US Hab module.

And radiation. You realize the Mars Direct habitat design has a radiation shelter?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-03-18 17:57:59)

RobertDyck · 2015-03-18 05:13:40

Terraformer wrote:

Why do you think launching from L1 is a stupid idea?

It takes fuel to get there, and has no advantage. When you measure total propellant starting from the launch site on Earth, it's far less to launch directly from Earth to trans-Mars trajectory. Earth-Moon L1 or L2 are just mathematically calculated positions in space, with nothing there. It takes propellant to get there, so there is a cost with no benefit.

Low Earth Orbit has some benefits. Although stopping in LEO takes more propellant than direct launch, the benefits are radiation protection, and ISS. That is LEO is inside the Earth's magnetosphere, so therefor protected from Radiation. So astronauts working there for any length of time have less radiation exposure. And ISS provides living quarters for astronauts, tools, the large robot arm, and all sorts of support for any on-orbit assembly. If you want any sort of orbital assembly before proceeding to Mars, the only sensible place to do it is ISS. And there are several vehicles capable of delivering supplies to ISS: Dragon CRS, Dragon v2, Cygnus, ATV, Soyuz, Progress, and hopefully DreamChaser. Any place beyond LEO will only have single-contractor supply.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-18 09:28:21

RobertDyck wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Why do you think launching from L1 is a stupid idea?
It takes fuel to get there, and has no advantage. When you measure total propellant starting from the launch site on Earth, it's far less to launch directly from Earth to trans-Mars trajectory. Earth-Moon L1 or L2 are just mathematically calculated positions in space, with nothing there. It takes propellant to get there, so there is a cost with no benefit.
Low Earth Orbit has some benefits. Although stopping in LEO takes more propellant than direct launch, the benefits are radiation protection, and ISS. That is LEO is inside the Earth's magnetosphere, so therefor protected from Radiation. So astronauts working there for any length of time have less radiation exposure. And ISS provides living quarters for astronauts, tools, the large robot arm, and all sorts of support for any on-orbit assembly. If you want any sort of orbital assembly before proceeding to Mars, the only sensible place to do it is ISS. And there are several vehicles capable of delivering supplies to ISS: Dragon CRS, Dragon v2, Cygnus, ATV, Soyuz, Progress, and hopefully DreamChaser. Any place beyond LEO will only have single-contractor supply.

What about using high efficiency thrusters which provide sub-g acceleration? You see one of the big losses in rocket launches from the Earth is that 1st g of acceleration is entirely negated by Earth's gravity at the launch pad. If you accelerate straight upward at 9.81 meters per second all you do is hold your position against Earth's gravity. If you accelerate upwards at 2 g you are only actually accelerating upwards at 9.81 meters per second, though you feel the full 2 g of acceleration as you sit in your acceleration couch. If you launch from Low Earth orbit, you are already traveling at about 8 km/second around the Earth, adding to that would put you in a higher orbit, add 3 more km/sec to your velocity and you will escape the Earth's gravity entirely. Orbit is a good place to assemble large spaceships that can't be launched directly in one piece from the Earth's surface.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-18 09:37:10

But what you said is true of "Earth orbit". Why L1? That's close to the gravitational half-way point between two bodies. For the Earth-Moon system, it's much closer to the Moon. Why would you assemble anything at L1? LEO would be far better.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-18 09:44:38

Somehow I gave RobertDyck the wrong idea. We agree that men should go to Mars. They should have gone some years ago.

All I was trying to say was that you go with "what works right now", and build and test your vehicles based on those technologies and science. There's a spectrum of readiness to consider: some things are well-proven, others are relatively new. The well-proven things you can bet lives on, the relatively-new things you use, but with back-ups. (Don't try to develop a brand new technology for this, or you'll never go.)

Now I understand that ISPP has had successful demos in the lab, and on ISS. The plan to demo it on Mars gets you information from 2 maybe 3 sites. So that's "relatively new" not "well-proven". Although, if sent ahead, having the propellant ready before you send a crew at all is a very good back-up. All that approach begs is landing accuracy. The risks are both too far and too close.

I agree about MCP suits. That technology requires a bit of maturation to make up for decades of neglect. It's not exactly a new technology. I think it might benefit from a change in design objective thinking, though. In recent decades suits have become "everything" garments to protect from all possible threats, which is in part why they have become so bulky and unwieldy. MCP or balloon, suit design would really benefit from thinking of it as vacuum-protective underwear, over which you wear whatever unpressurized outer protective garments suit the specific EVA. You simply don't need to wear everything all at once.

MCP uniquely lets you ditch the heavy liquid cooling system, and thus eliminates all risk of astronauts drowned with leak water in their helmets. MCP is nothing but an update of the old very successful partial pressure suit approach, just with better means to achieve compression, and compression extended to hands and feet, unlike the old bailout suits. It simply isn't vulnerable to decompression from leaks, excepting only the breathing helmet and tidal volume bag. Please, no exposed air line connections! That's too risky!

My only point about dust was that it will always induce unexpected failures in all sorts of equipment, so spares and backups are essential. Those are inherently heavy, but unavoidable, unless you plan to kill a crew. My other point is that this risk will vary greatly from site to site. A handful of probes scattered around the planet simply cannot characterize this.

The kind of freeze-dried food that you just heat and eat is very light, and not very voluminous, other than the necessary water. Trouble is, that stuff doesn't last but about a year to at most 18 months, as demonstrated by experience. The kind of stuff we use down here at home also has shelf lives, but a lot of it is measured in years, the very thing we need for a trip to Mars. In particular, canned goods and frozen foods last for decades. But, that's big and heavy, and that must be included in the life support mass estimates. And, it requires real cooking.

The real trouble with that is cooking methods in zero-gee. You can avoid all of that, and also simplify sewage plumbing too, if you go with spin gravity. That enables normal free-surface cooking. For those short intervals where you must de-spin, that's when you use the rations and the zero-gee toilet. Plus, spin gravity wards off all the microgravity diseases. This concept of spin gravity is over 7 decades old, nothing new there. No new science, no new technology unless you over-complicate things (something I as an engineer professionally despise). And like I already said, you don't need giant structures to do it. Spinning batons and cable-connected items are the two practical means to do it right now. I prefer the spinning baton as having fewer possible failure modes.

Given the political will and the money, we could mount an expedition in 5-10 years, really. We could have done so anytime after about 1995. We've known enough about radiation and microgravity to do it successfully since then. The solutions to most of the other issues have been around far longer. And, since about 2000-2005, we've even had the launchers at greatly reduced prices, and plenty of experience at LEO assembly by docking modules.

Many complain about the lander problem. There are two solutions to high ballistic coefficients in the thin-to-the-point-of-near-vacuum Martian atmosphere: (1) extendible/inflatable/flexible-foldable heat shields, and (2) supersonic/hypersonic retropropulsion. Of the two, retropropulsion is actually the more mature: Spacex is already employing it on its Falcon-9 first stage recoveries, and it is integral to the design of Dragon v2. The others are still in very early feasibility test. I'd recommend going with the more mature retropropulsion. You can land at least hundred-ton items that way, if need be. It ought to be used for the very next probes to Mars to add more experience and maturity.

Given all this, I see no technical reason we could not start now, aimed at a mission on 5-10 years. The problems are all human decision-making, not technical.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-03-18 17:54:54

Can we please keep the ISS topic on track.. I will copy posts to the appropiate topic so that we can continue there...

ADEPT

Lunar L1

Thanks...

RobertDyck · 2015-03-18 18:00:19

We need the Centrifuge Module, and US Hab module. Please please please please please! We could deliver them with an ATV-based service module, launched with an Ariane 5 rocket. Equipment for the inside delivered via Dragon CRS or Cygnus. Please.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-18 19:36:11

Both got cancelled back in 2005 as there was not enough open slots to send them up on shuttle and ISS cost overruns .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge … ons_Module

The CAM flight model along with the engineering model of the centrifuge rotor were manufactured.
The partly built shell of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module sits outside at Tsukuba Space Center in Japan.U.S. President Barack Obama's 2011 budget contains money for extending the ISS and this could allow procuring a new centrifuge for the International Space Station.

Did the funding ever get into the budget for Nasa to make use of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module

The Habitation Module for the International Space Station was intended to be the Station's main living quarters designed with galley, toilet, shower, sleep stations and medical facilities

We are to late for this one as NASA Recycles Former ISS Module for Life Support Research

v_iss_habmod_02.jpg?1292264025

The 8,500-pound (3,855-kilogram) common module was not yet modified to suit astronaut housing needs aboard the ISS due to budget constraints that led station planners to pull the habitation module from the launch manifest, NASA officials added.The 29-foot (8.8-meter) long, 16-foot (4.8-meter) wide module will be connected to two others at MSFC that were designed specifically for life support system research.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-20 15:24:20

Bigelow could provide a whole slew of "hab, etc" modules, based around their B-330 series. If NASA would just get on with it. Bigelow is not a favored contractor with a history dating back to 1958, though.

Any centrifuge module would have to be "from-scratch". That being the case, why not make it a free-flying spinning baton of B-330's flying alongside close by? About 17 should do it for 56 m R at 4 rpm, based on B-330 length, and also provide an enormous habitable volume, way bigger than the current ISS. Might even replace ISS as the original wears out and gets dangerous, sometime around 2025-2030. And you get to study all the partial gee levels!

Piecemeal replacement avoids congressional visibility, thus improving the probability of actually getting funds. Start with a half dozen B-330's, and just spin it faster.

GW

RobertDyck · 2015-03-20 16:49:17

"Free-flying" and "from-scratch" defeats the purpose of maintaining/leveraging investment in ISS. I mentioned a hab for the purpose of demonstrating in space a sink, shower, cooking facilities, etc. The centrifuge accommodation module is separate, and sized for tissue samples and small animals only. An astronaut could lie on his/her back, but it's not large enough for living accommodations. We need to complete closed-loop life support, and ability to live in space for extended time. We also need to develop/test/demonstrate the ability for a two spinning objects connected by tether to manoeuvre. That's manoeuvre while spinning in tethered flight. I initially suggested Soyuz/Progress, but it could be done with Dragon v2 / Dragon CRS. Building a new space station should only be considered until *AFTER* a human mission to Mars is complete.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-21 09:59:54

Hi RobertDyck:

I didn't suggest "free-flying" and "from scratch" as optimal policies in any way. I suggested them as possibly-practical ways we might get out of the impractical hole we have already dug for ourselves: a station that (1) is aging, and (2) serves many BUT CANNOT SERVE ALL the R&D needs we have for manned travel into deep space. We have to do something different to address this (when you find yourself in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging).

There's no chance of resurrecting the NASA hab module, it was scrapped. Period. They're supposed to experiment soon with a small Bigelow module on ISS; I'd recommend doing that, then following up with some multiple real B-330's added to the station. My point about "free-flying" is that not all modules "added" to the station have to be hard-connected to it. Sure, transferring between the main station and any free-flyers requires an EVA, but we need practice doing that anyway. It remains one big complex, just not all one single piece.

Point is, we're adding to the station complex, not replacing it. I see that as increasing the value of the existing ISS complex. Same argument applies to replacing worn-out ISS modules with new ones. Like changing a flat tire: you get to keep the car. Plus, done piecemeal, it does not become a political football.

There's also zero chance resurrecting the centrifuge module that was cancelled. Once a piece of hardware sits around too long, it's no longer spaceworthy. Ugly little fact of life. Plus it's too small for real work with humans.

That being the case, my suggestion about free-flyer additions to the existing ISS complex offers an avenue to sneak-in a big centrifuge without attracting meddling mis/micro-management from congress. Assemble one of the freeflyers slowly, one B-330 at a time. When it's long enough, spin it. Then do your human centrifuge work in it, at the same scale any real artificial gravity design would have.

By the way, none of that precludes doing cable-connected spin work as another free-flyer added to the existing ISS complex.

Or experimenting with assembly/repair work bays that have no gravity or atmosphere but protect thermally from harsh light and cold shadow. If the bay provides the lighting and the thermal control, astronauts working inside need suits that can be nothing but vacuum-protective underwear and a breathing helmet. Far more supple and dexterous that way, whether balloon or MCP. Test both assembly/repair techniques and new space suits that way.

I think in-space refueling tests ought to be free-flyers just for safety. NASA has to learn the Russian techniques for storables. Nobody has yet done cryogens. We will need all this for cis-lunar and deep space missions.

I quite agree with most everyone on these forums that we need to be experimenting with all sorts of life support items, and ISS is the place to do it. So is assembly of things in LEO. And in-space refueling. We're going to need that and more, even just going back to moon to establish a base there. And Mars. And everywhere else, too.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-03-21 10:03:39)

RobertDyck · 2015-03-21 11:26:26

Ever see the TV show "Extant"? Kind of a strange show, but the pilot starts on a space station. That station had two spinning modules connected with a tunnel. The astronaut could climb a ladder to the hub of rotation. The rest of the station was zero-G, so the astronaut could move freely from module to module. That requires a pressure tight rotary bearing of some sort, where the rotating section connects to the non-rotating section. And that has to be big enough for an astronaut to climb through. I'm leery of such a bearing being pressure tight, but sounds like a way to connect your baton to ISS.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-21 12:55:48

The bearings are and will be a problem for any iss application and the current solar panels give us clear indication of the chances for wear out as we have seen.

Basically adding new modules and removing old ones, replacing them with more capable ones is the best approach to keeping the foothold we have in space at this time. This also puts a stop to the chances of Russia's module pullout as having any lasting effect as well.

Speaking of TV why is there no Nasa TV carried on any local public cable provider or over air free broadcast? You could do a news channel that gives up to date information on all of the missions that are ongoing and a seperate channel for life onboard the station. This way Nasa gets money coming in for what they are doing in the name of science.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-22 10:28:45

Astronaut Kelly twins to test effects of space on cognition, one on earth, one in orbit

NASA astronaut Scott Kelly inside a Soyuz simulator at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Star City, Russia, on March 5

Both brothers have been to the space station on previous missions

The Penn study of the twins, who grew up in West Orange, N.J., is one of 10 that NASA has approved for the one-year mission, which could launch as early as Friday.
Scientists from other institutions are tackling such topics as space-induced changes in Kelly's immune system, intestinal bacteria, and genetic expression. All of it will be compared with test results from his brother, a retired astronaut.
The goal is to get a better idea of what happens to the human body on a prolonged mission, in preparation for an eventual journey to Mars.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-22 11:15:56

Second chances look promising for DreamChaser

The cargo version of the Dream Chaser will be fitted with solar panels to allow for longer-duration missions. Its wings will fold up to fit inside a five-meter diameter payload shroud on an Atlas 5 or Ariane 5 rocket, then extend to a wingspan of 22.9 feet in orbit.

The space plane could also launch on Delta 4, Falcon 9 and Japan’s H-2B and planned H-3 rockets, officials said.

Leveraging progress made to build a human-rated space plane for NASA’s commercial crew program, Sierra Nevada Corp. said this week it has offered a cargo-carrying version of the Dream Chaser spacecraft to resupply the International Space Station beginning in 2018.
The Dream Chaser would launch without a crew inside the nose fairing of an Atlas 5 or Ariane 5 rocket, fly on autopilot and dock with the space station, delivering up to 5,500 kilograms — 12,125 pounds — of pressurized and unpressurized cargo per mission, officials told reporters Tuesday at a press conference in Washington.
The spaceship would return to Earth and glide to a runway landing, bringing back up to 1,750 kilograms — 3,858 pounds — of experiment specimens and other gear for analysis and refurbishment.

The Dream Chaser’s cargo version will include a rear-mounted module to carry pressurized and unpressurized cargo.

Sierra-Nevada-Corporations-Uncrewed-Dream-Chaser-with-Cargo-Module-and-visible-cargo_Credited1.png

Sierra Nevada joins at least four other companies with bids to win contracts to carry up cargo to the space station beginning in 2018, with options covering flights through 2024.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-23 16:58:26

Why would Dream Chaser require a fairing? It has an aerodynamic skin.

Yes, Sierra Nevada's website now has images on their website showing this. Images dated March 17, so only 6 days old. But why? Is this an attempt by their competition added complication that impedes progress?

SpaceNut · 2015-04-09 19:40:20

Russia plans more than 250 scientific experiments on ISS

Over 220 experiments with foreign participation have been implemented or are at the stage of implementation on the Russian ISS segment in the period from 2000 to 2015 with 73 experiments have been completed. The 59 experiments in the field of space exploration technology, 24 - in the field of physical and chemical processes in outer space, 57 - in the field of Earth and space research, 46 - in the field of human organism studies in the weightlessness conditions, 51 - in the field of space biology and biotechnology and 18 - in the field of education and popularisation of space exploration have been completed or are at the stage of implementation.

SpaceNut · 2015-04-15 20:19:51

The Space Station Gets A Coffee Bar

In space, all they have is instant. Astronauts are allotted up to three freeze-dried cups (pouches, actually) a day, and Kloeris says it's "extremely popular."
The machine was designed by Argotec, an Aerospace company based in Torino, Italy, together with the Italian coffee company Lavazza. This is an experimental machine. Nobody's sure how all that coffee and steam will behave in zero gravity, and they've had to take extra safety measures, including steel tubing and lots of sensors.

argotec_lavazza_isspresso_control-c9ee41510997eb7824482b908d4553f28aec5c26-s900-c85.jpg

It's called ISSpresso. "I-S-S for the International Space Station," says David Avino, Argotec's managing director. "'Presso' like the espresso."
The ISSpresso is a box about the size of a microwave. You put in a pouch of water, add a little capsule of espresso and press the button marked "brew." The espresso comes out in a second pouch. (Avino says the Italians are still trying to develop a little cup that will work in zero-G's.)
"Everybody can join and can also be happy getting an espresso coffee," Avino says. "And this will be also a great occasion, you know, to all meet together and [have] a coffee all together on the station."
It's perfect for the astronauts, but NASA's Vickie Kloeris is anxious. "Each cup has an individual capsule that has to be packaged separately. So there's a lot of trash and a lot of volume involved in it," she says. Getting things in and out of space is expensive, and Kloeris says NASA managers are still trying to figure out how to deal with all those finicky plastic pods.
Assuming it works, she thinks the astronauts will soon be needing more: The machine comes with just 20-30 coffee capsules.

Terraformer · 2015-04-16 09:33:57

How about a plastics recycler for the ISS? Or even better, a waste reprocessing module. Especially if we can scoop Nitrogen and Oxygen from the upper atmosphere...

RobertDyck · 2015-04-16 10:36:42

Do you want to start manufacturing on ISS? If not, then recycling raw materials isn't useful. Current practice is to send up finished equipment; if it breaks then send up replacement parts. They aren't moulding or machining on ISS. So there's no purpose to recycle raw material.

Although LEO has a thin wisp of atmosphere, enough to slow ISS or any satellite enough to fall out of orbit, it's not enough to collect. Not for any practical use. If you created a large enough collector to produce a practical amount, then that collector would act as aerobrake to slow ISS out of orbit. That would create a need for more propellant to stay in orbit, so defeat the point of reducing consumables.

What I think we need:

fix the urine processing assembly
replace the toilet with one that recovers moisture from solid human waste (thermal or vacuum desiccator)
shower (like Skylab) and sink (like a glove box, but for washing hands)
direct carbon dioxide electrolysis, based on NASA's ISPP Precursor designed for the Mars 2001 Lander (oxygen to cabin for breathing)
methane pyrolysis (recover hydrogen for use in Sabatier reactor)
clothes washer/dryer designed for operation in zero-G

Your suggestion of recycling raises another issue: reuse. The slogan on Earth is "reduce/reuse/recycle", where recycle is the last resort. So we could replace plastic spoons and plastic knives for eating with normal cutlery that can be washed. That could be hard, durable plastic, or metal. That means a dishwasher. You could wash dishes by hand in the sink (see above), but want to free as much astronaut time as possible. So a small dishwasher, designed for zero-G.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-04-16 17:43:42)

SpaceNut · 2015-04-16 16:55:59

Plastic could be recycled into its raw chemical for reuse but lets continue this in the plastics topic. The other thing about manufacturing should be a science as to how to produce what we need from raw materials or from recycled materials. The items that we could make from them could be an inflateable module, radiational coating for the modules, fuels as well as carbon for use in the sabatier reactor.

Terraformer · 2015-04-17 07:49:19

Well, actually I was thinking just about breaking the plastic down, maybe even using it as propellent in an electric engine to boost the stations altitude (do we have electric thrusters which can use hydrocarbon propellent?).

But see PROFAC. If someone orbited a demonstration system...

I agree that the ISS needs certain utilities which it lacks at the moment. We're going to need them anyway, for manned deep spaceflight.

SpaceNut · 2015-04-17 20:06:10

The scooping of atmosphere has been discussed with regards to Venus with siphon tubes ect...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2015-03-17 17:57:31

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#302 2015-03-17 19:18:41

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#303 2015-03-18 04:56:23

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#304 2015-03-18 05:13:40

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#305 2015-03-18 09:28:21

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#306 2015-03-18 09:37:10

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#307 2015-03-18 09:44:38

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#308 2015-03-18 17:54:54

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#309 2015-03-18 18:00:19

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#310 2015-03-18 19:36:11

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#311 2015-03-20 15:24:20

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#312 2015-03-20 16:49:17

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#313 2015-03-21 09:59:54

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#314 2015-03-21 11:26:26

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#315 2015-03-21 12:55:48

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#316 2015-03-22 10:28:45

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#317 2015-03-22 11:15:56

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#318 2015-03-23 16:58:26

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#319 2015-04-09 19:40:20

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#320 2015-04-15 20:19:51

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#321 2015-04-16 09:33:57

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#322 2015-04-16 10:36:42

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#323 2015-04-16 16:55:59

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#324 2015-04-17 07:49:19

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

#325 2015-04-17 20:06:10

Re: International Space Station (ISS / Alpha)

Board footer