Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-20 17:00:48

Okay, so it'd be a mess to make the shuttle capible of lasting a long time in space and still be capible of an abort on demand. You neglect, however, what it would be like to create an entire new system from scratch. Propulsion, power, heat shield, protection, hydrolics, you name it have to be built entirely from scratch, and in the tradidtional NASA way, by re-inventing the wheel. At leas all of those systems are there on the space shuttle, in some way, shape, or, form. Those systems in a ground-up ERV don't even exist in any engineers' minds yet.

The idea of ditching the shuttle and ISS is completely, utterly nuts. Deleting the station and shuttle programs is in effect deleting NASA itself. So you free up $6 billion a year. That's good. But let's look at the consequences for a moment. Let's say that right now, Sean O'Keefe had a press conference announcing that NASA would have nothing to do with either program. Instead, they will pursue the crew exploration vehicle. Judging by their previous record on shuttle replacements, they invest $4 billion into it, then cancel the whole CEV idea. The governemnt is disgusted, and severly slashes NASA's budget. It's only a matter of time until the whole organization is disbanded due to lack of anything being done. Right now the ISS/shuttle is to NASA as the Gameboy is to Nintendo, it's the onlything keeping the organization alive.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 18:21:49

But all these systems you just mentioned... would have to be highly modified in order to work on orbit on-call after a decade in the cold soak... the hydraulics might even have to be replaced with solenoids entirely.

Well, there is this, for under a billion perhaps
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x38.ht … ft/x38.htm

Or just buy $100M worth of these a year, 1/43rd of whats spent on Shuttle
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuzt … yuztma.htm

Or use a strip-down return version of the CEV capsule, which could be ready in time for completion if things moved along on schedule.

...NOT dumping Shuttle & ISS is completly and utterly nuts. That up and down and around in orbit crap they do is not getting us anywhere. Its cost to operate them is extreme because of the complexity of both systems, their low reliability, various terrible design compromises, and old age... The cost is so high that it percludes doing ANYTHING else. As long as Shuttle flies and we bind outselves to keep the decrepit ISS flying, there will be no manned missions anywhere else. And if one of the systems fails or when the program is "complete" in ~202X, Congress decides that patching potholes is more important now that NASA would no longer have a clear mission, and we will be stuck here all the more.

"Perhaps I can find new ways to MOTIVATE them"

"...their previous record on shuttle replacements, they invest $4 billion into it, then cancel the whole CEV idea... It's only a matter of time until the whole organization is disbanded due to lack of anything being done."

I think you are missing somthing... that up until Columbia and PlanBush, NASA have been operating under the assumption that Shuttle would be flying to the ISS until 2025, and would be the same stalwart and uncancelable gravy-train that it has been for 25 years. As long as Shuttle kept flying, their money kept coming, so there was a vested interest in flying it forever.

But now, with a concrete deadline that the train stops in 2010, NASA has somthing new to motivate them... their own destruction. The agency will do somthing, and it will do so efficently, and it will do so effectively... or there simply won't be a NASA anymore. JPL will be sold off to the DoE/NSF, and that will be that.

BWhite · 2004-07-20 18:28:18

When X-38 was cancelled, I said to some that was step one towards killing the station. I read somewhere that the administrative cost to wrap up the program was more than 50% of the cost to have finished the program and deliver flight-ready X-38s.

Maybe there is a secret plan to have Bush cancel shuttle / ISS after the election so the Florida voters don't punish him.

= = =

Question about this:

But now, with a concrete deadline that the train stops in 2010, NASA has somthing new to motivate them... their own destruction.

Why can't Congress change the rules on re-certification? Not cancel the process but merely define the current refurbishment as compliance?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 18:40:23

Jeffery Bell actually had a similar idea... that the "fixing the Shuttle" is a makework deal until somtime in 2005, when Bush/O'Keefe come forward publicly and say that Shuttle cannot be fixed for a sum that makes the ISS worthwhile, or the ISS is doomed, or somthing.

The X-38 was axed to pay for Shuttle and help bail out/pay off the Russians if memory serves. Wonder they didn't ditch the Mars missions instead...

Simply doubling the Soyuz flight rate ought to be seriously considerd. The Russians are quite capable of building four R-7 rockets a year, and the additional cost would be aproximatly $100M/yr, which is quite nominal and you get to trade crews every 3mo instead of 6mo, easier on them, more ESA astronauts, etc.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 18:57:52

Why can't Congress change the rules on re-certification? Not cancel the process but merely define the current refurbishment as compliance?

Recertification is the process where the blueprints and plans and the vehicles themselves are inspected, and all the engineering involved re-checked, where failure probabilities and consequences and tollerances/performance/margins are re-evaluated... It is a very involved, laborious task and after the number-crunching is done the vehicle is stripped down and inspected to make sure it is built the way the plans call for... At least as far as I understand it, i'm not an engineer.

It is somthing that engineering societies and NASA safety policy, and the CAIB people sets, it isn't somthing that Congress can over-rule lightly. That would be a little like telling doctors to over-rule medical ethics, and since it would cross the return-to-flight people, step on the toes of White House politics.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 10:33:24

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04m.html

"Even though the modification is only a slight change from what we have flown on the Shuttle, it still requires a rigorous certification and verification process that includes testing"

And thats just for changing the SRB's recipie a little and adding some bolts.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 10:39:04

Why can't Congress change the rules on re-certification? Not cancel the process but merely define the current refurbishment as compliance?
Recertification is the process where the blueprints and plans and the vehicles themselves are inspected, and all the engineering involved re-checked, where failure probabilities and consequences and tollerances/performance/margins are re-evaluated... It is a very involved, laborious task and after the number-crunching is done the vehicle is stripped down and inspected to make sure it is built the way the plans call for... At least as far as I understand it, i'm not an engineer.
It is somthing that engineering societies and NASA safety policy, and the CAIB people sets, it isn't somthing that Congress can over-rule lightly. That would be a little like telling doctors to over-rule medical ethics, and since it would cross the return-to-flight people, step on the toes of White House politics.

Fair enough, but what is that $1.1 billion return to flight money for?

I thought the orbiters were being stripped down as we type these messages. Since Congress loves the orbiter so much, why not do the recertification right now?

= = =

This is not my objective, of course. I favor immediate grounding of the entire orbiter fleet.

Yet so many people, including clark and Keith Cowing seem convinced that the orbiter WILL be terminated in 2010 come hell or high water just because GWB said so at a press conference and Sean O'Keefe said so in some smoky bar.

My point? Lets not be so sure about the politics of that. Senators Nelson and Hutchison, for example, seem to have a different agenda.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 10:46:10

To pay for all the modifications and new stuff... millions for new launch cameras, millions for re-inspecting each orbiter, millions and millions for hoarding supplies and Shuttle tiles on the ISS, millions for robot arm modication, millions for the laser hole-finder, millions and millions for astronaut Shuttle repair training (!!!), millions for paying engineers overtime for re-re-checking assemblies, millions for paying the Shuttle builders consulting fees, millions for testing/re-testing TPS modifications...

The list goes on. Is it not clear that by nature of Shuttle's extreme complexity and fragility, that modifying it for anything than its intended purpose would be folley?

I agree that there is political will behind keeping the Shuttle/ISS status quo going indefinatly, but telling GWB "no" is not somthing to do lightly, when it hinges on the whole agencies' future.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 10:48:45

To pay for all the modifications and new stuff... millions for new launch cameras, millions for re-inspecting each orbiter, millions and millions for hoarding supplies and Shuttle tiles on the ISS, millions for robot arm modication, millions for the laser hole-finder, millions and millions for astronaut Shuttle repair training (!!!), millions for paying engineers overtime for re-re-checking assemblies, millions for paying the Shuttle builders consulting fees, millions for testing/re-testing TPS modifications...
The list goes on. Is it not clear that by nature of Shuttle's extreme complexity and fragility, that modifying it for anything than its intended purpose would be folley?

Which is why "return to flight" is stupid.

But in politics momentum is everything and the Bush plan of return to flight and ISS completion followed by shuttle retirement creates momentum (and inertia) in entirely the wrong direction.

RTF as part of VSE is an inherent political contradiction. Bureacracies cannot turn on a dime like a Porsche or BMW.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 12:02:25

*SIGHS* Another half-decade and $50Bn spent on our "international commitments" to the pathetic "international space station."

GraemeSkinner · 2004-07-21 12:46:28

To pay for all the modifications and new stuff... millions for new launch cameras, millions for re-inspecting each orbiter, millions and millions for hoarding supplies and Shuttle tiles on the ISS, millions for robot arm modication, millions for the laser hole-finder, millions and millions for astronaut Shuttle repair training (!!!), millions for paying engineers overtime for re-re-checking assemblies, millions for paying the Shuttle builders consulting fees, millions for testing/re-testing TPS modifications...

It always amazes me how much things cost when space is invloved. I think if NASA (or any other space agency) ever send out for lunch they have to fork over a million dollars or so. Perhaps its the amount of time agencies outsource materials/experts that pumps up the price for projects. You can just imagine a small company somewhere receiving an order from NASA, and the companies managing director sitting there rubbing his hands together working out which small island he can buy with the profits. Do you think whenever NASA sends out for quotes companies just put a few zero's on the end to see what they can get away with, because thats what it seems like at times.
Small rant over with, just to clear the head a little

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 13:59:53

Take a minute and step back, be objective for a spell... remember the idea of payload margins? Or how for a given fuel, there is a limit to the practical dry weight fraction of the rocket?

The force of gravity and the thickness of our air is so severe, that even with the best of chemical fuels, the portion of the rocket that isn't fuel is a measly few percent. That is, for the huge million-pound fueled rocket, the entire vehicle empty... fuel tanks, structural girders, engine pumps, batteries, computers, gas bottles, hydraulics/solenoids, all of that must not weigh more than the mass fraction.

Then there are the dynamics involved... that launching a rocket requires exposing the whole of the vehicle to anywhere around 3-5G, which is a terrible strain. It gets worse too, since the vehicle has to resist flying supersonicly through the lower atmosphere, which tends to make airplanes rattle apart or even melt if not done just right. The vibration involved is also severe, the Saturn-V with its massive F-1 stage was near the edge of human tollerance, and certainly required many componets to be bolted down tight.

And then your rocket also has to withstand the airlessness of space, holding in a reasonable amount of pressure... and all the pieces have to survive the super-cold and burning heat, coming and going every 45min or so in LEO, which bomb squads use to destroy sensitive things. Cooling systems for day side, heaters for night, and so on.

Since rocket fuels have reached the limit of their efficency, even the best rockets only have a few percent mass fraction. The weight of the vehicle is absolutly critical, everything has to be built light as you can while still resisting the horrible ride to reach space and the harsh conditions beyond... you have to use Titanium, Aluminum, carbon composits, expensive engineering polymers, etc etc to save every pound you can.

THEN after all that, you can think about your payload. The payload is basicly whatever mass you have left from the mass fraction budget for the rest of the rocket, so to keep the rocket from getting to be an obcene and unmanageable size, you have to keep the mass of the rocket as low as you can. The Atlas-V can't even stand up under its own weight without the tanks being under a little pressure... its an aluminum balloon!

The reason space travel is so expensive versus other forms of travel, is because it is EXTREMELY hard. Its a wonder that its possible at all, the nay-sayers of the 1800's were perfectly justified in saying that space travel is a crazy dream, and only through the best of engineering is it possible at all... and to make vehicles like that of such complexity, building them and testing them and refining them so they don't explode or otherwise fail is a major major challenge... all those heating coils and control wires and countless details, all engineered from blueprint up to work together... it all comes at a price.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-21 14:32:27

Some other interesting ideas for an ERV:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm]MOOSE
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm]Kliper

I like the MOOSE idea because it allows much more flexability for the station. If you ever want to increase the ISS's capacity just bring a few more up, and you don't run into the problems about orbital debris or radiation. The Kliper will have a capacity of up to six, the same as the cancelled X-38, but will be cheaper and availible by the time the station is complete. Why not use that? If there are concerns about how long it can soak in space, just bring another up every two years or so.

Your arguments just have one critical flaw in them, GCNR, yes, it's difficult to replace all the shuttle components, but it would be even more so to design new ones from scratch. Let's assume that NASA suddenly had a paradigm shift in their building philosophy and stopped re-inventing the wheel every time they needed a cheep off-the-shelf part that can do the job just as well as a custom one. Even if you scraped together a custom ERV this way, it would be easier to do it to the shuttle because there at least you have something to start with.

I really like the idea of retiring the shuttle while giving it some use into the future, which is what this plan is aobut. However, as the Russians prove, sexy doesn't get the job done, functionality does. Perhaps there are easier ways to do this. For example, why not show some cooperation and give the Chineese their first challenge as part of the international space community, build a hab module. They'd get it done a lot cheaper than we ever could, and either the MOOSE system or a Kliper could be used in an emergency. Still, it seems like such a waste to me for the shuttle to bring the module up there, drop of a return vehicle, and just leave.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 15:17:53

The Kliper manned spacecraft replacement for Soyuz was first mentioned at a Moscow news conference on 17 February 2004. The 14.5 tonne reusable lifting body would be used as a space station ferry and lifeboat, or could operate independently to shuttle tourists to space. Assuming the Russian government provided 10 billion roubles of financing, Kliper and its new Onega launch vehicle could fly as early as 2010.

Okay, here is the rub: Assuming the Russian government provided 10 billion roubles of financing, Kliper and its new Onega launch vehicle could fly as early as 2010.

Its always about the money.

Yahoo says that todays exchange rate is about $0.34 for 10 roubles.

10 billion roubles = $340 million US, right?

Jeez. $500 million? Why doesn't Elon Musk just buy an Onega factory and be done with it? Or is my math off?

= = =

PS - - How much is CEV development expected to cost?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-21 23:05:59

Jeez. $500 million? Why doesn't Elon Musk just buy an Onega factory and be done with it? Or is my math off?
= = =
PS - - How much is CEV development expected to cost?

Yeah, it's pretty sad. Looking at what Rutan and Allen did with only $20 million and Musk with only a teensy fraction of what NASA would require for the same job (Don't know what the actual cost of the Falcon development is), it seems that if they pooled thier money together the dot.com/microsoft space agency could become more powerful than NASA.

As for CEV cost, I'm betting zero dollars. The reason is simply that it won't happen. According to http://space.com/news/nasa_budget_040720.html]this article, the House approved a bill that would in fact cut NASA's budget by a few hundred million dollars in 2005. That's a far cry from the extra billion Bush called for, and the money will go to, guess what, veteran's wellfare. Politics picks a winner again.

Look, I'm all for compensation for veterans, but cutting up NASA to give them an extra 2%, that's just too much. In the cuts, the CEV development was dropped to a quarter of what it was supposed to be. IMHO, it's clear that once NASA gets to sped near a billion on the CEV, the whole project will be cancelled. If you're intrested in leaving LEO, don't be a NASA fan. China will get back to the Moon before anyone, and private industry will be the main leader out there within a few decades. Maybe. :hm:

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 23:10:54

Your arguments just have one critical flaw in them, GCNR, yes, it's difficult to replace all the shuttle components, but it would be even more so to design new ones from scratch. Let's assume that NASA suddenly had a paradigm shift in their building philosophy and stopped re-inventing the wheel every time they needed a cheep off-the-shelf part that can do the job just as well as a custom one. Even if you scraped together a custom ERV this way, it would be easier to do it to the shuttle because there at least you have something to start with.

NO! *stamps his foot*

Are you MAD? Do you have any CLUE how complex the Space Shuttle is? It is THE most complex thing made by the hand of man... ever! It really WOULD be easier and cheaper and faster to design all the componets that the ISS needs than it would be jerry-rig Shuttle like this!

"It has more than 2.5 million parts, 230 miles of wire, 1,060 plumbing valves and connections and 1,440 electrical circuit breakers. Not surprisingly, it requires the utmost care... Failure of any one of some 2,000 "Criticality 1" items on the shuttle could mean disaster for the spacecraft or its crew."

Heck, Soyuz doesn't even have 2000 pieces total hardly!

How is this hard for you to understand? Why is this not sinking in? Modifying Shuttle to do anything it was never intended to do is a horrible idea. It took a decade to finally make Shuttle fly, and billions and billions of dollars, it is a monster. You can't certify it easily, you can't fly it easily, you can't maintain it easily, you can't DO anything with it easily... You would even have to be careful cleaning it at the museum not to break the tiles!

TransHab is a pretty simple device... a woven Nomex/Kevlar bladder sheathed with foam attached to an Aluminum load core frame with a Node hatch on one end. Some lights, a new toilet, a water tank, and a space kitchenette. Demonstration bladders have been pressure tested and foam debries shielding impact tested... It is not a difficult thing. A billion or two sounds perfectly reasonable.

The X-38's basic technology save for the TPS has been tested... the aerodynamics are proven, the landing mechanism proven, storable OMS propellants proven, GPS navigation proven, autopilot proven... etcetera etcetera. It would cost no more than $1.0-1.5Bn to produce a launchable vehicle. Or, each Soyuz-TMA costs about $50M a shot. If the ISS will be around until 2015 or so, then you simply fly two more per year. Problem solved for about the same money, no Klipper development needed. I am also dubious about Russia's promise to make Klipper for that sum... they lied to us before how much ISS modules would cost to wring money out of NASA.

I reiterate, it would cost MANY BILLIONS of dollars at the very very least to make such a radical alteration to Shuttle, and it is simply unthinkable and irrational for informed persons to even remotely to entertain such a crazy idea! Shuttle IS that bad! It really is that complex! Its a HORRIBLE spaceship!

GraemeSkinner · 2004-07-21 23:57:48

...Modifying Shuttle to do anything it was never intended to do is a horrible idea. It took a decade to finally make Shuttle fly, and billions and billions of dollars, it is a monster. You can't certify it easily, you can't fly it easily, you can't maintain it easily, you can't DO anything with it easily... You would even have to be careful cleaning it at the museum not to break the tiles!

So painting go faster stripes down the sides and giving it heafty spotlights on front is out then?

I reiterate, it would cost MANY BILLIONS of dollars at the very very least to make such a radical alteration to Shuttle, and it is simply unthinkable and irrational for informed persons to even remotely to entertain such a crazy idea! Shuttle IS that bad! It really is that complex! Its a HORRIBLE spaceship!

As far as the shuttle is concerned, its replacement is long overdue, I know I argue (in other threads) to keep as much space orientated hardware as possible, but people lives are at stake with something like the shuttle. Its a decades old craft that has proved its worth, but perhaps NASA was caught napping when the shuttles were grounded and they had nothing near ready as a replacement. Its time however to move on, retire it or make it flightworthy for a few more years, but I don't like the idea of retrofitting it to do something it was never designed for.

Graeme

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-22 13:27:41

NO! *stamps his foot*
Are you MAD? Do you have any CLUE how complex the Space Shuttle is? It is THE most complex thing made by the hand of man... ever! It really WOULD be easier and cheaper and faster to design all the componets that the ISS needs than it would be jerry-rig Shuttle like this!
"It has more than 2.5 million parts, 230 miles of wire, 1,060 plumbing valves and connections and 1,440 electrical circuit breakers. Not surprisingly, it requires the utmost care... Failure of any one of some 2,000 "Criticality 1" items on the shuttle could mean disaster for the spacecraft or its crew."
Heck, Soyuz doesn't even have 2000 pieces total hardly!
How is this hard for you to understand? Why is this not sinking in? Modifying Shuttle to do anything it was never intended to do is a horrible idea. It took a decade to finally make Shuttle fly, and billions and billions of dollars, it is a monster. You can't certify it easily, you can't fly it easily, you can't maintain it easily, you can't DO anything with it easily... You would even have to be careful cleaning it at the museum not to break the tiles!
TransHab is a pretty simple device... a woven Nomex/Kevlar bladder sheathed with foam attached to an Aluminum load core frame with a Node hatch on one end. Some lights, a new toilet, a water tank, and a space kitchenette. Demonstration bladders have been pressure tested and foam debries shielding impact tested... It is not a difficult thing. A billion or two sounds perfectly reasonable.
The X-38's basic technology save for the TPS has been tested... the aerodynamics are proven, the landing mechanism proven, storable OMS propellants proven, GPS navigation proven, autopilot proven... etcetera etcetera. It would cost no more than $1.0-1.5Bn to produce a launchable vehicle. Or, each Soyuz-TMA costs about $50M a shot. If the ISS will be around until 2015 or so, then you simply fly two more per year. Problem solved for about the same money, no Klipper development needed. I am also dubious about Russia's promise to make Klipper for that sum... they lied to us before how much ISS modules would cost to wring money out of NASA.
I reiterate, it would cost MANY BILLIONS of dollars at the very very least to make such a radical alteration to Shuttle, and it is simply unthinkable and irrational for informed persons to even remotely to entertain such a crazy idea! Shuttle IS that bad! It really is that complex! Its a HORRIBLE spaceship!

Well, I am the Mad Grad Student. I don't like using bold typing, it just seems to make you look like a raving lunatic when you use it.

Wow, GCNR, I have to say that that is certainly the most violent negative idea bashing I've ever recieved outside of school or family. Believe me, I completely understand where you are coming from, the shuttle is madeningly complex. If you noticed, I said from the very begining of this topic to modify it as absolutely little as possible. The idea is just a creative way to retire the shuttle while still making it useful and solve the ISS's problems while you're at it. Weither or not it could be done, in all seriousnes, is probably not something either of us could determine, I was just throwing the concept out there so that it could be debated. Peacefully, without everyone trying to rip each other's head off about it.

Hold on, I'll be back in a sec to finish the post.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-22 13:43:25

Jeez Louise, ever since I joined this site I've felt like a creationist in a sea of rational people. I think that I'm probably the only one here that supports the space station (Waiting for GCN to name-call me about that). I don't know, maybe I should just give up and start complaining about it like everyone else. GCNR, I am not asking you for guidence (Just keep that in mind).

The shuttle is not a horrible space ship. It was revolutionary at the time and the fact that they still work today is pretty impressive. By today's standards, though, they do suck, but what are you going to do? The CEV as planned will be far less capible than the shuttles and, as much as none of us want to admit it, deriding congress on a message board isn't going to get us a replacement for the shuttle. How exactly do you plan to take care of a space station without it? Oh yeah, in the alt. space baseline plan the ISS is just discarded. I don't stand for that.

So I don't fall in line with everyone else mindlessly following the lead of the visionaires like Zubrin (who is in fact a fan of the ISS). So what? I'm making my own decisions, my own opinions, and guess what, basing them on facts, not what I'm feed by every opinion article at spacedaily. There's nothing wrong with that.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-22 18:18:06

Bleah I get carried away easily, i'm not angry with you Mad... frustrated maybe, but not angry.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-22 18:51:20

The Space Shuttle concept is revolutionary, that NASA had in its mind to try and make a spacecraft that would fundimentaly change the economics and routine-ness of spaceflight... but what we got was sadly lacking.

The Space Shuttle concept has really three primary purposes... to ferry cargo to orbit cheaply and reliably, to ferry people to orbit and back cheaply and reliably, and to return signifigant loads from orbit cheaply and reliably. This is what it was supposed to be... and the vehicle that we got has failed on every one of these counts miserably. By definition, a horrible spaceship. It is not even really a "spaceplane" at all, it is one of the post-Saturn NOVA concept rockets with wings and wheels, built to cater to the USAF's demands for cross-range on a (original) budget of far less than NASA needed.

That isn't to say that it cannot launch things or ferry people or retrieve cargo, and it can perform on-orbit tasks in its big open cargo bay like HST repair, but it can do none of these well enough. Its inefficency at these tasks is so great, that the monetary cost to MAKE them work well enough and use Shuttle anyway to build & maintain the ISS has cost us everything.

Right now Shuttle costs 4.3 Billion Dollars Per Year. If you had that money, just for one year, you could afford to build a HAB module and extra Soyuz capsules.. perhaps a few ATVs too.. until the end of the ISS's practical life.

You could also increase the budget for the CEV program by about 800%... or largely fund MarsDirect without a single penny of extra public money. None!

---

And why would we want to replace the Space Shuttle? What would we use it for if you did? There is no good reason to build Shuttle-II, what we need is a safe way to move people cheaply into orbit or to L1/LMO and back again now and then... CEV... and we need a means of launching large payloads at minimum development dollars, which we have in rudimentary forms as the EELV-HLV and eventually EELV+ or a heavy lifter.

Yes, it is mind-boggling to throw away the ISS after all the money has been spent on it... but really, what good is it? What good is the ISS? What is it for? Why do we need it? Why should we keep shelling out Billions of dollars per year for it? There just isn't much worthwhile activity to do up there.

Not that it matters anyway

The extreme cost of Shuttle is so bad, that the Hab module which makes the ISS useful was canceld. So was the ACRV since we could just use a single Soyuz-TMA. And now that Columbia has happend, and Shuttle is simply not a long-term option anymore, there is NO way to move substantial payload to the station or back down. Even if you could launch a dozen Progress-B ships, it still wouldn't work... Shuttle and the ISS are joined at the hip.

The idea of using Shuttle as the HAB module and ACRV is simply not at all practical. It isn't. Its just is not. There is no matter of degree here... it just cannot be done for any reasonable sum, and may not be possible at all. It would certainly be cheaper to restart the stupid-simple TransHab and ultra-bareboned purpose built X-38, or just buy more Soyuz capsules.

The reason is that such a modification would have to be radical. There is no way around this. Shuttle was never intended for on-orbit storage or for housing people for long periods of time. The power system, the engines, the computers, thermal regulation, landing gear, TPS system, hydraulics, waste management, water storage, docking clamps, and on and on and on... Because Shuttle is so complex, three million parts, and has such poor tollerances that the cost of engineering this level of alteration to the vehicle would easily be astronomical. That is the bottom line.

Edit: Consider this... that even if we did try to replace Shuttle with "somthing better" like it, the ISS would be so old by then that we shouldn't even bother if Shuttle-II is supposed to service the ISS.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-22 20:42:23

Before you start calling ISS a dead horse, consider this. The George W. Bush lunar initiative calls for using ISS to prove technology to get to the Moon. That requires a proven long-term life support system. ISS is currently supplied by the Russian life support system, and the fact it only has a water electrolysis system to generate oxygen means it only recycles half the oxygen. That isn't good enough for the Moon. The US Habitat module will have to be built and launched to prove (and debug) the life support system before building anything on the Moon. Of course, it can be used to go to Mars, but that won't motivate the current administration. Bottom line: the US Hab will have to be built.

Once the US Hab is up there, ISS will be able to accomodate a full crew. That will permit ISS to do the science it was designed for.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-22 20:47:32

Oh! And don't forget another fun tidbit... The LSS system on the ISS is run by cracking water, which is pretty heavy. The Space Shuttle is run off of fuel cells, which produce water as a byproduct, so the ISS supply mass budget takes into account that it gets free water from the Space Shuttle's fuel cells. And you need water to drink too.

No water, and the mass for a full crew could almost double... that kinda cuts into the science payload, doesn't it?

The ISS needs Shuttle. Shuttle is going away... so the ISS is doomed even if it did have worth.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-22 20:52:05

Ahhh yes the US hab module... well, there isn't going to be one Robert, the money was spent to make the Shuttle fly.

And we DON'T need to launch the regenerative LSS system to test it. We can test it on the ground juuust fine... gasses behave much the same way down here as they do up there. Its simply not a big enough excuse to spend the money to build the US Hab. NASA has tinkerd with an 85% recovery system right here on terra-firma for years... it is not an issue.

And you still don't have a means of ferrying up cargo. Or getting people back down in an emergency. Or getting them up there in the first place efficently.

Edit: ...Or bring cargo back. Or bring down broken parts to fix and re-launch as NASA has done for years. Or do sensitive camera work, too much vibration. Or grow protein crystals, too much vibration... etcetera etcetera

...And to use Shuttle as ACRV/Hab plus keep flying the other two orbiters, you need an additional Shuttle docking port.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-22 20:55:14

If you build the US Hab complete with the Sabatier reactor, it will recycle all water that astronauts breathe. The water recycling system is designed to recycle wash water; the Russian system only recycles water from the urine collection tube and dehumidifier. That would close the LSS sufficiently that you don't need Shuttle, and sufficiently for a Lunar base or Mars mission. The Johnson Space Center tested a system that also included a toilet that incinerated solid waste. That provided 97% water recycling closure. If we replace the ISS toilet with one that incinerates, we could achieve the final LSS closure that NASA said they want for a Mars mission. With that level of water recycling, there is no need for water from Shuttle. In fact, with closure that tight astronauts could stay on ISS as long as the food lasts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-20 17:00:48

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#27 2004-07-20 18:21:49

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#28 2004-07-20 18:28:18

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#29 2004-07-20 18:40:23

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#30 2004-07-20 18:57:52

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#31 2004-07-21 10:33:24

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#32 2004-07-21 10:39:04

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#33 2004-07-21 10:46:10

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#34 2004-07-21 10:48:45

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#35 2004-07-21 12:02:25

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#36 2004-07-21 12:46:28

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#37 2004-07-21 13:59:53

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#38 2004-07-21 14:32:27

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#39 2004-07-21 15:17:53

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#40 2004-07-21 23:05:59

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#41 2004-07-21 23:10:54

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#42 2004-07-21 23:57:48

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#43 2004-07-22 13:27:41

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#44 2004-07-22 13:43:25

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#45 2004-07-22 18:18:06

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#46 2004-07-22 18:51:20

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#47 2004-07-22 20:42:23

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#48 2004-07-22 20:47:32

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#49 2004-07-22 20:52:05

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#50 2004-07-22 20:55:14

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

Board footer