You are not logged in.
There is still a liiitttle problem... how to get up there. And how to get science racks up there. And how to get science racks back down. And how to get big parts up there (like batteries that keep failing, or gyros). And how to get big things back... the Soyuz hatch is just too small.
Even with a water bill of zero pounds per year, the ISS still needs considerable payload to get anything done even if you did try to shove it through the little hatch in little pieces. More than Progress-B or ATV can carry given a reasonable flight rate.
[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
Ah, we don't need to test anything because we can design it so well on Earth. I suppose astronauts will never tug on an air hose just because its the only handle next to the window. That has already happened on ISS. Mir had problems as well: cables and hoses run through hatches between modules prevented closing those hatches when one module started to leek. The computer started to malfunction. Let's see: after a major power spike and the computer malfunctioned, who would of thunk it? The Russian LSS has had several malfunctions on Mir and ISS requiring parts to be replaced. But the Hamilton Sundstrand design uses a reverse fuel cell to create oxygen from water, similar to the Russian system. I think we can expect similar problems.
Apollo was incrementally tested, over and over again. When I was young I asked why Apollo 9 and 10? After Apollo 8 did its flyby, why didn't the next mission land? But NASA tested everything. And every mission before Apollo 17 had something go wrong; only the last one was flawless. You will never know what can go wrong until you test it. If you knew ahead of time, there wouldn't be a need to test.
Offline
Batteries and gyros failing? I think we need to work that out in LEO. Are these things really too small for the ATV hatch? Humbly go hat-in-hand to ESA and ask them to make the hatch bigger.
Offline
Attach the LSS system to a Bigelow TransHab at 28 degrees.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Thats correct, we can test a machine which hides behind doors and vents, which behaves the same on Earth as it does in Zero-G, which can be tested integrated with the final complete craft (unlike on ISS), and for alot less than the trouble of building a HAB module basicly from scratch, putting together a mission plan to connect it, and finally buying ANOTHER Shuttle sortie - which Nasa already will be hard pressed to give before 2010 at any price - right here on the ground.
Nooope, the ATV's hatch isn't the problem... its the Russians. The ATV uses the same hatch on the ISS as Progress. Which is really small. So small that you cannot fit science racks or gyros or SPS batteries or new super-toilets through... And you still don't have a way to get them back down.
And THEN you still can't send enough mass up without Shuttle to support science for a full crew. The ISS uses alot of mass, and Shuttle brings up alot, which will be gone.
The ESA is not looking to spend any more money on the ATV. They are only ordering a few of them total, and the design has been finalized a long time ago. Also, the docking guideance system for ATV is mounted only on the Russian docking hatches... there is no guideance hardware at all on the big American ones, since you didn't need it with Shuttle's robot arm.
[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
Slightly off thead (maybe more) but this strikes me as breaking news:
A proposed new federal policy would require the military to select only one of the two existing major launch vehicle providers to continue supporting by the end of the decade, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. According to the article a draft space transportation policy drafted by the Bush Administration would require the Pentagon to select either Boeing's Delta 4 or Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5 as its sole EELV provider by 2009. The downselect is being proposed because of the expense of supporting both launch vehicle programs given the current weak demand for commercial launches. The military has insisted that its "assured access to space" policy requires both vehicle lines be kept active, so that the military can continue launching critical payloads should a problem shut down one vehicle program for an extended period. The plan would also require NASA to use EELVs for its future space exploration programs, rather than develop its own successor to the space shuttle.
http://www.spacetoday.net]http://www.spacetoday.net
Back on thread. We will need LSS that can fit on Delta IV.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Which might mean a HAB module which will have to fly on Delta-IV or Atlas-V 55X. Which means you have to come up with a SMV docking tug from scratch.
Sounds like Congress is leaning tward EELV or EELV+ for NASA... can't blame them that they want to do away with the entire Shuttle program given its cost.
[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
Which might mean a HAB module which will have to fly on Delta-IV or Atlas-V 55X. Which means you have to come up with a SMV docking tug from scratch.
Sounds like Congress is leaning tward EELV or EELV+ for NASA... can't blame them that they want to do away with the entire Shuttle program given its cost.
This also means, IMHO, that the NO heavy lift crowd has already won in the White House.
I doubt its Congress. "They" can't agree on what they want.
No CEV funding for FY '05 is not consistent with no SDV and 100% EELV reliance.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Well, it means the no-SDV croud, not the no-HLLV persay... if they are worried that the SDV costs will spiral out of control, since it will undoubtably be run in large part by the current Shuttle folks, thats hard to argue with. It is not outside the realm of possibility to make a large rocket using EELV hardware. Tripple-core Atlas-VI with stretch tanks...?
Yeah, the CEV funding thing... I have a feeling its a partisan maneuver... It sounds to me like Congress wants to put PlanBush on hold until ISS is done. (then blame Bush for it)
[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
Batteries and gyros failing? I think we need to work that out in LEO. Are these things really too small for the ATV hatch? Humbly go hat-in-hand to ESA and ask them to make the hatch bigger.
Will GWB's NASA ever do that?
Can we start these experiments on ISS before 2010? How long must the orbiter stay in service after 2010 to accomplish these experiments?
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Yeah, the CEV funding thing... I have a feeling its a partisan maneuver... It sounds to me like Congress wants to put PlanBush on hold until ISS is done. (then blame Bush for it)
Nope, its all intra-mural. Republican vs Republican.
Rohrbacher wants science slashed for engineering and Boehlert wants science to stay on par and a number of House Republicans are worried about the deficit.
If it were partisan, Tom Delay would be screaming bloody murder at the Democrats. He isn't.
As a true blue Democrat I can honestly and sincerely say the NASA funding debacle is a 100% Republican caused FUBAR.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
I hope they don't down-select to only one launch vehicle. Boeing and Lockheed Martin both have a history of ratchetting up the cost. We need a second LV as competition to keep cost relatively under control. United Space Alliance is those same companies working as a single organization to service Shuttle; we all know what happed to Shuttle costs. I suppose they could down-select EELV and build SDV, but I doubt that'll happen. Such disparate systems wouldn't provide good competition to keep cost down. Then there's the models: Atlas V 40x is a much better medium size vehicle than Delta IV Medium, but Delta IV Large is a better large vehicle than Atlas V 55x. Keeping the best of both means keeping them both alive.
Offline
On paper that sounds fine and dandy, but the reality is that right now there aren't enough commertial or USAF payloads to keep both rocket lines in business... either one of them is eliminated, or the USAF/NASA/et al. have to pay for one line to keep open that they don't have to. It takes alot of money to keep a rocket factory, rocket assembly, and rocket launch pad in operation.
Plus, modifying either rocket line with larger tanks is not a huge undertaking. Chances are it would be easier for Atlas since it uses denser, easier to store fuels... How about a 5M wide Atlas, all the way top to bottom, with six SRBs... that might hit 40MT.
[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
I hope they don't down-select to only one launch vehicle. Boeing and Lockheed Martin both have a history of ratchetting up the cost. We need a second LV as competition to keep cost relatively under control. United Space Alliance is those same companies working as a single organization to service Shuttle; we all know what happed to Shuttle costs. I suppose they could down-select EELV and build SDV, but I doubt that'll happen. Such disparate systems wouldn't provide good competition to keep cost down. Then there's the models: Atlas V 40x is a much better medium size vehicle than Delta IV Medium, but Delta IV Large is a better large vehicle than Atlas V 55x. Keeping the best of both means keeping them both alive.
Buy Russian & Ukainian.
If its okay to outsource the making of shoes to Vietnamese earning 10 cents per hour and to outsource $60K per year computer jobs to Indians making $18K per year, why not buy Zenit for our civilian men in space?
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
How about a 5M wide Atlas, all the way top to bottom, with six SRBs... that might hit 40MT.
Ok, how much would that cost to develop vs. cost to maintain Delta IV?
Offline
Thats an easy one.
Zenits still blow up. The Zenit-IIISL is not anywhere near man-rated yet, Zenit-II is hardly in production and soon to be replaced by Angara, and it would be alot of trouble and time and money to make them safe enough.
Plus, Zenit is a little small. Its only a medium booster, it could just lift the ground-to-LEO version of CEV. Maybe. And it definatly could not lift the TLI stage.
[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
Buy Russian & Ukainian.
If its okay to outsource the making of shoes to Vietnamese earning 10 cents per hour and to outsource $60K per year computer jobs to Indians making $18K per year, why not buy Zenit for our civilian men in space?
Would congress go for it? I believe there is a federal regulation stating that all military or government launches must be on US built launch vehicles. That's to maintain strategic industries: ensure foreign powers can't withhold supply. I'm not sure that paranoia is necessary, but that's the justification. Is congress willing to not only make ISS dependant on Russian & Ukrainian rockets, but equipment for a Lunar mission? (Or Mars?)
Offline
I don't know for sure, but the total bill for developing the EELVs was only a few billion. The USAF chipped in a decent chunk reportedly of $1Bn... We already have the engines, RS-68 or RD-180 and RL-10 varients or RL-60, we already have the guideance system, we already have the trained assembly and launch technitions, and much of the factory is already built. I bet you could upgrade either one to man-rated 40MT capacity for half the cost of development.
As for launch costs, since the rocket would be essentially the same one as the EELV HLV, just a little bigger, I can't imagine it would cost over 25%-50% more per-flight.
[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
Ai-yi-yi, sorry GCNR, I think my response to your response was a little too harsh. So you used all the type modifiers, I've seen plenty worse techniques from guys attempting to use leet (or "1337") speak. Lets just drop it and move on, no harm done.
Coming from a scientific perspective, it's bad to be wrong. The way that you prevent yourself from being wrong is by knowing when to believe (Though that's a bad word in science) in yourself when the facts show that you're right and to accept defeat when the facts show that you're wrong. Well, it does seem that the facts support your case, GCN, the shuttle would be a nightmare to modify, but I'm still attracted to the idea. It's so... elegant, superficially at least.
But elegance won't get you anywhere except the Smithsonian. To solve our little hab/ERV dillema, a better choice would probably be to let the Chinesee design a dirt cheap hab and then use something along the lines of MOOSE as an ERV. One personal lifeboat per person, avoids the muss and fuss of maintaining a full-size ERV on orbit.
Still, we need to finish the ISS. If NASA doesn't, Washington will probably not be very eager to let them go to Mars. "You guys can't even figure out how to build a space station and you want to go to Mars?" Good luck finding money after that. Once the ISS is done, IMHO, NASA should finally start letting the private sector into space. By 2014 NASA will be done with all the science it can do on the station according to everyone yelling to kill it now, and if Burt Rutan keeps his word (And he has a history of doing so) he ought to be in orbit by then. Why not turn it over to private industry. Sell the station itself to an operator that does or gets someone else to provide maintainence and new additions, and let anyone onbaord who can pay or can use it. Meanwhile, NASA can use its newly liberated cash to do what it's supposed to do, expand the frontier.
A mind is like a parachute- it works best when open.
Offline
