Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

publiusr · 2006-08-11 15:54:00

I'd like to see Energiya brought back--by non-NASA fund. I think the oil states should invest in this.

Wasn't there a suggestion from the State Dept. urging Boeing to go on a fact finding trip?

(They were too busy selling Delta IV).

SpaceNut · 2006-08-21 20:07:12

Back in july Space tourist 'Dice-K' prepares to blast off

But it looks like Daisuke Enomoto the Japanese space tourist is grounded after failing medical test

This leaves The First Female Space Tourist? U.S. Entrepreneur Determined to Reach Orbit

Anousheh Ansari is paying $20 million for a 10-day roundtrip to the orbital laboratory currently set to launch on Sept. 14.

What does that make now for visiting the ISS via the Russian Soyuz....

SpaceNut · 2006-10-09 18:32:31

NASA considering Frenchman for space station stint

SpaceNut · 2006-10-11 19:57:29

Well here we go again for why the shuttle just might be only put into mothballs rather than fully retired.

Controllers turn off spinning gyroscope because it was vibrating excessively.

Space station's pointing gyroscope shut down

The station has several methods of orienting itself so its solar arrays get enough sunlight to produce electricity and the station can maintain communications with the ground. The main method is a system of four 270 kilogram (600-pound) gyroscopes that spin at 6600 revolutions per minute.

Station gyro off line; impact on shuttle flight assessed

That CMG was replaced with a spare during the first post-Columbia shuttle mission in 2005. No other backups are available, but the failed gyro currently is being refurbished. Depending on what happens with CMG-3, the refurbished gyro could be added to an upcoming mission.

dicktice · 2006-10-12 10:51:49

The 2010 Space Shuttle time limit was arbitrarily based upon the number of missions to complete the ISS--as well as reiability concerns, since resolved by the proven onboard inspection/repair procedures capable of being carried out during each mission. So, WHY NOT carry on with the Space Shuttle Program, beyond 2010, for as long as it takes the follow-on space transportation system to be developed, proven and placed in production?

Rxke · 2006-10-12 11:23:20

Because it costs a lot of money, even if they were mothballed.

NASA's plans don't allow this, currently.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-12 12:11:41

The 2010 Space Shuttle time limit was arbitrarily based upon the number of missions to complete the ISS--as well as reiability concerns, since resolved by the proven onboard inspection/repair procedures capable of being carried out during each mission. So, WHY NOT carry on with the Space Shuttle Program, beyond 2010, for as long as it takes the follow-on space transportation system to be developed, proven and placed in production?

No! Shuttle is really the millstone around NASA's neck, if NASA is to have a future, any future at all, the Shuttle has got to go and go soon. The ISS has a limited lifespan, and unless NASA is well on its way to doing something else before the ISS debacle draws to a close, then NASA is doomed. It will take several years to build this momentum, therefore it is nessesarry to start as soon as is practical.

NASA can't do alot without money, and as long as the Shuttle is pressed into service, this money will not come. The only way to get this money is to get rid of Shuttle. Also, NASA cannot afford to lose a third Shuttle, the damage to its credibility would be fatal. Presently, I think it is entirely fair to label Shuttle's safety, despite all the improvements and repair techniques, as "borderline unacceptable." There are just so many ways for something to go terribly wrong, and so few ways to survive. The sooner we have a safe, reliable rocket like Ares-I topped with the far more surviveable Orion, the better.

Heimdall · 2006-10-12 15:49:15

I find the knee-jerk anti-Americanisms on this forum very interesting, especially considering that the only option any true space exploration fan has is to have faith in, and support, the US -the only nation with the know-how, spirit, and not least guts to get the job done, not just talking about it like the Russians or endlessly having conferences about it hoping the US will eventually pick up the bill, like the Europeans.

If the Shuttle is of no use, don't use it. If the ISS is of no value, don't spend money on it (or spend as little as is politically possible). The same goes for Hubble. Move on!

Don't nitpick or find faults, let's savour the moment and rejoice: we have an American President who have a will to explore and has put some (hopefully enough initial) money to this end in a realistic plan. We have a strong US economy and improved technology. This might happen. Isn't that what everybody on this forum wants, or am I mistaken? This is good news. Treat it as such. Show some respect. Be happy. Be creative.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-12 16:53:45

Welcome Heimdall. Nice to see someone new, the same arguments get tiresome.

Interesting name, in old Norse mythology Heimdall is the guardian of the gods who will blow the Gjallarhorn if danger approaches Asgard. He's guardian of the Bifröst Bridge, the bridge leading from the realm of mortals, Midgard, to the realm of the gods, Asgard. His hall was called Himinbjörg (Sky Mountain). An interesting name for a space fan talking about human access to space and the ISS. Do you live in a Norse country?

You have to be careful of quick assessments of old arguments. When suggestions have been raised to utilize non-American space assets, some Americans claim anything American is good, anything non-American is bad. The obvious reaction to this may appear anti-American if you haven't read the anti-everyone-else rhetoric. Many of us would like to just "get along", but nationalistic arrogance appears to be a problem that just won't go away.

dicktice · 2006-10-12 19:59:11

Because it costs a lot of money, even if they were mothballed.
NASA's plans don't allow this, currently.

...And in the meantime, regardless of costs, have to depend 100% upon the Russians to minimally "crew" the ISS?

dicktice · 2006-10-12 20:03:17

Heimdall: To which "anti-American" post or posrts are you referring? Please be more explicit....

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-12 21:53:29

You have to be careful of quick assessments of old arguments. When suggestions have been raised to utilize non-American space assets, some Americans claim anything American is good, anything non-American is bad. The obvious reaction to this may appear anti-American if you haven't read the anti-everyone-else rhetoric. Many of us would like to just "get along", but nationalistic arrogance appears to be a problem that just won't go away.

When reading assessments and assessments of assessments, particularly by America-hating Canadians with a tenuous grip, an implacable unwillingness to consider the political implications of engineering choices, and a fanatical loyalty to the notion that any idea no matter how bad can be done with "just a little bit less," you should be extra careful of staw men and crazy ideas used in place of accurate summaries.

Other countries have some decent hardware, Russia is presently the only game in town for large kerosene engines for instance, and they can definatly build rockets much more cheaply then we can since they don't pay their workers near as much. They will, however, require a pretty big investment to get back into the business of large rockets, which I think the "advertised" sum is fraudulently low. Then there is this odd effect, perhaps revulsion of America breeds infatuation with Russia, imparticularly with the mythical nonsense of their shuttle being "operational."

The cheif problems though is either giving American taxpayer money to foreign companies, or else entwining the fate of American spaceflight with the cooperation of foreign countries (like ISS), or both. Money that is spent on American companies bennefits the American economy, but American money spent on Russia does not. This becomes a serious political drawback as well as purely economical (nontrivial fractions of federal budget), since outsourcing NASA projects to Russia et al means a great deal of skilled Americans will lose their jobs that otherwise would not. Rockets are powerd by political support just as much as they are rocket fuel these days.

I think it is beyond reasonable argument that Russia is also in the business of obstructing America to diminish our position in the world, and so binding our fate in space to their whim is just not a good idea. They won't have a space program to speak of without us anyway, since they are broke, so its a "free" way to exert muscle on us. They have done it in the past over the ISS to extort money from NASA and used spaceflight as a political tool to help their friend and our enemy, Iran.

I have no problem with other countries supplying ancillary, non-critical hardware, but ultimately the majority of the NASA enterprise and everything critical to its functioning has to be domestic. Thats just the reality of the situation, nothing arogant about it. We don't need, and infact we need not to need other countries. Lastly, spaceflight is probably the quintessential and purest patriotic activity however, and there is nothing at all wrong with this. Why should we not be proud? This too is a political facet to consider, that "joint project with our partners _____" does not arouse patriotic feelings in the general population that pays for all this as much as "America did it."

RobertDyck · 2006-10-13 06:28:16

Case in point.

Palomar · 2006-10-13 07:10:07

Welcome Heimdall. Nice to see someone new, the same arguments get tiresome.
Interesting name, in old Norse mythology Heimdall is the guardian of the gods who will blow the Gjallarhorn if danger approaches Asgard. He's guardian of the Bifröst Bridge, the bridge leading from the realm of mortals, Midgard, to the realm of the gods, Asgard. His hall was called Himinbjörg (Sky Mountain). An interesting name for a space fan talking about human access to space and the ISS. Do you live in a Norse country?

Whoa, Robert. Didn't know you were a mythology buff. Ah, your fantastic computer-like mind. I do envy it (in a good way).

some Americans claim anything American is good, anything non-American is bad. The obvious reaction to this may appear anti-American if you haven't read the anti-everyone-else rhetoric. Many of us would like to just "get along", but nationalistic arrogance appears to be a problem that just won't go away.

But there's also the (often my own) feeling -- discouragement actually -- that others are especially out now to make us wrong, wrong, wrong no matter what we do. It's a bit confusing to go from most of life with the U.S. generally beloved and welcomed most of the world over...and now we're so universally hated. :-\ And in the short span of 6 years it seems. Sure, some of that is a result of things we've done or not done properly...but not all of it. Frankly, some U.S. hatred has become fashionable; the "in" thing to do.

As for Canada, it gave us William Shatner and Hayden Christensen. That definitely makes it one of the best nations in the world.

As for the ISS, I still say abandon that piece of junk and let it burn in LEO...let's get on to Mars.

dicktice · 2006-10-13 20:25:53

"And in the short span of six years..." you say. What does that particular time span conjure up, I wonder, with regard to your presumption of hatred (your term) of the US in the World? As to the "piece of junk," it's already in LEO and in no danger of burning up, thank you, very much. Are you burning up, now? :oops:

Palomar · 2006-10-14 05:11:36

"And in the short span of six years..." you say. What does that particular time span conjure up, I wonder, with regard to your presumption of hatred (your term) of the US in the World?

Well, not to go too far off topic (even if I did start the original thread)...everything has changed since 9/11. Some of that is unavoidable. In childhood/teen years the U.S. seemed mostly welcomed and admired by the world. I would have felt safe traveling to just about anywhere. Not anymore. But attitudes and behaviors have dramatically shifted within the U.S. as well. Frankly I often feel somewhat estranged as fellow Americans go. I'm never into "reality TV," I am willing to remain friends with people whose political views differ from mine (unlike lots of folks here who become downright hostile and rejecting of others), etc., etc....in some ways I'm at odds with quite a lot of current U.S. sentiment. But again, the U.S. does seem downright hated now by much of the world. Is some of that our own fault? Sure. But not all. Western civilization is pulling itself apart over how to deal with hostile outside forces. The repercussions of 9/11 have been staggering; "world turned upside down." I sure miss the old days.

As to the "piece of junk," it's already in LEO and in no danger of burning up, thank you, very much.

De-orbit it!

Are you burning up, now? :oops:

Hey...I don't kiss and tell.

RedStreak · 2006-10-14 11:01:50

As to the "piece of junk," it's already in LEO and in no danger of burning up, thank you, very much. Are you burning up, now? :oops:

Give it two years without those boost-burns from the shuttles and the Progress and its orbit will begin to decay quite noticeably. The original space station Freedom was intended to orbit 500 miles high to avoid virtually all atmospheric drag but with all the compromises made the ISS is barely half that distance and still within range of the atmosphere to lose appreciable orbital velocity. It would certainly reenter within twenty years tops if nothing is done to regularly boost its orbit just like Skylab.

dicktice · 2006-10-14 14:35:34

And ... what do we do in the meantime, between de-orbiting the "junkyard" we've spent so much effort learning how to assemble and make habitable ... and waiting for something like it only marginally better to be put up (say) by China supported by Russia while we watch and perfect our antiballistic missle defences from North Korean and Iranian threats? Come on! Accept that we have only once to be the firstest and the bestest--and this is it. Onward and upward, I say, with what we already have in hand, however inadequate. Nothing's perfect in space program start-ups, by definition. We've been starting from scratch ever since Apollo shut down. Making do with what we've got in orbit, the transport system which we've trouble-shot so it's adequate for the time needed, and building upon these using current operating staff while they're still able and willing to do the job, surely beats your defeatist suggestions of starting all over again. Because, be then, we'll have lost out to the next generation of spacefaring wannabes....

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 14:43:52

You have to be careful of quick assessments of old arguments. When suggestions have been raised to utilize non-American space assets, some Americans claim anything American is good, anything non-American is bad. The obvious reaction to this may appear anti-American if you haven't read the anti-everyone-else rhetoric. Many of us would like to just "get along", but nationalistic arrogance appears to be a problem that just won't go away.
When reading assessments and assessments of assessments, particularly by America-hating Canadians with a tenuous grip, an implacable unwillingness to consider the political implications of engineering choices, and a fanatical loyalty to the notion that any idea no matter how bad can be done with "just a little bit less," you should be extra careful of staw men and crazy ideas used in place of accurate summaries.
Other countries have some decent hardware, Russia is presently the only game in town for large kerosene engines for instance, and they can definatly build rockets much more cheaply then we can since they don't pay their workers near as much. They will, however, require a pretty big investment to get back into the business of large rockets, which I think the "advertised" sum is fraudulently low. Then there is this odd effect, perhaps revulsion of America breeds infatuation with Russia, imparticularly with the mythical nonsense of their shuttle being "operational."
The cheif problems though is either giving American taxpayer money to foreign companies, or else entwining the fate of American spaceflight with the cooperation of foreign countries (like ISS), or both. Money that is spent on American companies bennefits the American economy, but American money spent on Russia does not. This becomes a serious political drawback as well as purely economical (nontrivial fractions of federal budget), since outsourcing NASA projects to Russia et al means a great deal of skilled Americans will lose their jobs that otherwise would not. Rockets are powerd by political support just as much as they are rocket fuel these days.
I think it is beyond reasonable argument that Russia is also in the business of obstructing America to diminish our position in the world, and so binding our fate in space to their whim is just not a good idea. They won't have a space program to speak of without us anyway, since they are broke, so its a "free" way to exert muscle on us. They have done it in the past over the ISS to extort money from NASA and used spaceflight as a political tool to help their friend and our enemy, Iran.
I have no problem with other countries supplying ancillary, non-critical hardware, but ultimately the majority of the NASA enterprise and everything critical to its functioning has to be domestic. Thats just the reality of the situation, nothing arogant about it. We don't need, and infact we need not to need other countries. Lastly, spaceflight is probably the quintessential and purest patriotic activity however, and there is nothing at all wrong with this. Why should we not be proud? This too is a political facet to consider, that "joint project with our partners _____" does not arouse patriotic feelings in the general population that pays for all this as much as "America did it."

We do agree on somethings, we are not always at logger heads over everything. I look for ways to get into space faster. I was very optimistic in 1985 about where we were going, and by 2006, it appears we didn't get very far, it is clear to me now that NASA must be doing something wrong to attribute this lack of progress.

I don't know why the Russians have to wear the black hats and be our adversaries, in those days following 1991, I thought Russia would finally get a chance to be a normal country, and not always the villain, but it appears the Russians are type cast into that role, and they don't know how to play any other. Russia, culturally is really part of the Christian West, they are Europeans, not Asians, yet they seek to undermine us when the Christian world is attacked from without. Anyone who wants to attack America always seems to get a covert or overt helping hand from Russia. We wanted peace, we got peace, but the Russians it appears don't want too much peace, they want some more conflict, they want to push the world closer to nuclear war without getting too close, they just don't want all this blossoming peace that we got in the 1990s, and now they are here to threaten us again. So should we scrap all the nuclear arms limitation treaties, shall we start up the bomb and missile factories once again? We were fooled once by Gorbachev, thinking he wanted peace. What shall we do when the next "Gorbachev" comes around? Get me off this merry-go-round! Why does it matter why the Russians rattle their sabre at us, it seems the "reason" doesn't matter at all, they just feel comfortable rattling their sabre and putting American's lives in danger by their proxies as they are too cowardly to do so directly. I'd rather dispense with the pleasantries and false comradery and get back to reality. Do the Russians want to live in peril of their lives, knowing at any moment, the missiles could fly and they would be dead 30 minutes later? I wish the World would settle in some peaceful state and we can all learn to be good neighbors.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 14:50:53

Welcome Heimdall. Nice to see someone new, the same arguments get tiresome.
Interesting name, in old Norse mythology Heimdall is the guardian of the gods who will blow the Gjallarhorn if danger approaches Asgard. He's guardian of the Bifröst Bridge, the bridge leading from the realm of mortals, Midgard, to the realm of the gods, Asgard. His hall was called Himinbjörg (Sky Mountain). An interesting name for a space fan talking about human access to space and the ISS. Do you live in a Norse country?
Whoa, Robert. Didn't know you were a mythology buff. Ah, your fantastic computer-like mind. I do envy it (in a good way).
some Americans claim anything American is good, anything non-American is bad. The obvious reaction to this may appear anti-American if you haven't read the anti-everyone-else rhetoric. Many of us would like to just "get along", but nationalistic arrogance appears to be a problem that just won't go away.
But there's also the (often my own) feeling -- discouragement actually -- that others are especially out now to make us wrong, wrong, wrong no matter what we do. It's a bit confusing to go from most of life with the U.S. generally beloved and welcomed most of the world over...and now we're so universally hated. :-\ And in the short span of 6 years it seems. Sure, some of that is a result of things we've done or not done properly...but not all of it. Frankly, some U.S. hatred has become fashionable; the "in" thing to do.
As for Canada, it gave us William Shatner and Hayden Christensen. That definitely makes it one of the best nations in the world.
As for the ISS, I still say abandon that piece of junk and let it burn in LEO...let's get on to Mars.

I believe its a package deal, they hate us, and as an added bonus, they have us as their adversaries, they can't have one without the other. If they really want us as their enemies, then they should watch out! We should not give them the benefit of using us as their punching bag. If they hit us, we hit back! let them know, if they want bad relations, then the world is going to become a more dangerous place for them and us. All this effort for peace, the end of the Cold War, and what does it bring us, our former allies searching for new enemies to defy. If they choose us for an enemy, we should let them know that they can expect to pay a price for it, and that its not cheap rhetoric.

Palomar · 2006-10-14 15:07:26

And ... what do we do in the meantime, between de-orbiting the "junkyard" we've spent so much effort learning how to assemble and make habitable ... and waiting for something like it only marginally better to be put up (say) by China supported by Russia while we watch and perfect our antiballistic missle defences from North Korean and Iranian threats?

...how's about we go to Mars?

Come on! Accept that we have only once to be the firstest and the bestest--and this is it.

:shock: Oh please...don't make me spew my soda! Seriously. You're saying the ISS is our "first and best"...? Please tell me I'm misreading you. No, Apollo was the first and best.

Onward and upward, I say, with what we already have in hand, however inadequate. Nothing's perfect in space program start-ups, by definition.

True enough.

We've been starting from scratch ever since Apollo shut down.

Yeah. Thanks for nothing, Pres. Nixon.

...surely beats your defeatist suggestions of starting all over again.

The ISS wasn't a start, in my opinion. Pres. Nixon threw a curveball, it's up to us to recoup it. The springboard would be starting where Apollo left off, not this continual "lost in LEO" baloney.

Because, be then, we'll have lost out to the next generation of spacefaring wannabes.

Thanks to ISS and shuttle, I think a lot are lost already. Nah, go with my plan; we'll have wannabes in droves.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-14 18:50:19

I believe its a package deal, they hate us, and as an added bonus, they have us as their adversaries, they can't have one without the other. If they really want us as their enemies, then they should watch out! We should not give them the benefit of using us as their punching bag. If they hit us, we hit back! let them know, if they want bad relations, then the world is going to become a more dangerous place for them and us. All this effort for peace, the end of the Cold War, and what does it bring us, our former allies searching for new enemies to defy. If they choose us for an enemy, we should let them know that they can expect to pay a price for it, and that its not cheap rhetoric.

With space, I have been a strong fan and wanted to get into the field since I was literally bottle-fed as a baby. NASA is great! But international relations have been strained for a long time. In the 1950s, Russia built a new bomber that could fly directly over the north pole to attack Canada and the US. Canada responded by developing a fighter that could intercept it over Canadian airspace: the Avro Arrow. It was the best fighter of its day, and could rival most of the fighters in service today. Mark 1 and 2 were built in 1959, the later could fly at mach 2, used fly-by-wire, self-contained radar, and manoeuvred so well a new G-suit was developed. The Sparrow air-to-air missile bought from America was being improved to have fire-and-forget capability, to be called the Sparrow-2. The Mark 3 Arrow on paper could fly as fast as an F-15 Eagle, but the F-15 wasn't built until the 1970s. The Mark 4 version could cruise at mach 1.7, today only the F-22 Raptor can supercruise. Canada only wanted one military thing that was best in the world, and intended to sell it to all the other NATO countries including the US. But the US didn't like Canada having the best of anything, so strongly pressured Canada to abandon it. The best Avro engineers went to NASA; the Arrow airframe engineer designed the Gemini capsule, the only spacecraft to be designed by a single individual. Show some thanks for taking Canada's best and brightest.

Trade negotiations have been a battle rather than cooperation of allies. American trade negotiators always try to manipulate the agreement to be biased in America's favour. Even then, America does not comply with what it agreed to. Canada has been economically bullied. We have gotten to a point where the only way to get respect is to give the US a figurative bloody nose. Canada is peaceful, so that would have to be done with trade. Some trade thing that will leave America crying "not fair" and run away crying. America as a culture doesn't like getting a bloody nose; the situation could get very bad. We could still avoid that by simply behaving responsibly; convince your politicians to behave themselves and obey trade agreements.

The US had a balanced budget before George W. was elected. Canada has had surpluses since 1997. Stephen Harper, our new Prime Minister, said there won't be any more surpluses, all money will be spent as soon as he gets it, but the finance minister and president of the treasury board made a joint announcement of a $13.2 billion surplus this year. Canada is financially in good shape. Do you think it's a coincidence that America is taking money from Canada in the form of softwood lumber duties? American politicians want Canada's money to help pay their bills. It hurts the American house construction business, but they don't care.

Stephen Harper has chosen to cave in on trade agreements. A very bad decision, those American trade negotiators who choose to behave as bullies will only think it's a victory and bully more. But then he made an inflammatory comment about the arctic. It's inconsistent, can only result in worsening relations. I said before and I'll say it again, Canada now has a leader as bad as George W., we have to get rid of both of them before they screw the world up worse than they already have.

If you want Canada to be nice and supportive and kind, accepting everything you do, then stop punching Canada. In the past Canada has taken it, but no more. I see America as the older, larger brother to Canada. Well, little brother has grown up; if you kick him now he will kick back. If you don't like being kicked back, then stop kicking Canada.

There is one more story I want to impart. Something my mother told me formed my views and passed on family values, but can also demonstrate Canada's relations with the US. When my mother was a child in elementary school she often got in fights with her brothers, both older. These could be nasty, punching, all-out fights. However, one day she saw her brother being beaten-up by a group of girls. Not teasing or girly fighting, they were punching and viscously beating up her brother. She didn't hesitate, she went in and beat up the girls. Although they were outnumbered, between the two of them they fought off the group of girls. My mother told me this story when I was a child to ensure I would defend my brother and sister; but I see this as an example of Canada-US relations. We may have some nasty arguments over trade, but when someone from outside the family attacked our big brother, we sent every soldier we had available into Afghanistan. We have peacekeeping commitments in various parts of the world, and a certain minimum contingent had to remain at home for defence, but everything available was sent to Afghanistan. Actually, that's one reason we didn't participate in the war with Iraq: we didn't have anything left. We had a few tanks and armoured personnel carriers, but no troops to operate them because every soldier available was in Afghanistan.

So don't view it in black-and-white. Our sibling rivalry will have to end, big brother will have to stop beating us up for our lunch money, but don't treat it as "you're either with us or against us".

Ps. This is why I created a "Canada / U.S. relations" thread in "Free Chat". Let's leave any further discussion of international relations there.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-14 19:43:45

Thanks,

Now back to what I brought up as an issue when it comes to retiring the shuttle fleet. Items to large or fragile to be brought up the the station by anyother manner but by the shuttle. The science racks, Gyro's are just a few of the items that I am aware of. Are there more that would preclude Nasa forever shutting down all shuttle flights.
Nasa going with a 5 segment for the Ares 1 and V means that shuttle still can launch if ET's can be made and SSME refurbished.

dicktice · 2006-10-14 20:50:12

Palomar, you are funny. You wrote: "Oh please...don't make me spew my soda! Seriously. You're saying the ISS is our "first and best"...? Please tell me I'm misreading you. No, Apollo was the first and best. "
I refer to space stations, the dream of the pioneers which the USSR persisted in carrying out through Mir. So the ISS isn't first overall, but it's OUR first. And even it uses the nodal design approach of Mir (rather than the landmark von Braun / Arthur Clarke wheel configuration which would be very dicey to build, if not impossible, or the cylindrical configuration which I would have preferred, such as Skylab, which might turn out to be the 2nd generation) it's demonstrably OURS, and--since there'll never be another we will have total control of--the BEST.
Now, if your argument is against space stations per se, let's hear your specific objections. Historically, the space station was supposed to be a "walk before you run" enterprise for off-Earth experimenting and Earth observation. Apollo missions were "Vikings-to-Vineland" space excursions, in my view: a once-in-a-generation venture which was only just possible,after a thousand years of wooden, ocean-going longship development with no possibility of further increases in size and performance to support them from the distant motherland, at their stage of development.
The ISS exists and only recently been proven capable of being supported indefinitely by the existing Space Shuttle together with the Soyuz transportation system, for obtaining the essential coming-of-age experience we need to survive indefinitely in LEO--and contribute to the development of better transportation systems, leading eventually to operational Cis-Lunar space voyaging.
A direct-to-Mars voyage would be analogous to the Vikings' daring exploit ,on steroids: another one-off sensation ,which I hope to live to see ... but not the colonizing effort that we'll require one or more space stations for.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-15 08:28:15

The ISS exists and only recently been proven capable of being supported indefinitely by the existing Space Shuttle, as well as the Soyuz transportation system, for obtaining the essential coming-of-age experience we need to survive indefinitely in LEO--and contribute to the development of better transportation systems, leading eventually to operational Cis-Lunar space voyaging.
A direct-to-Mars voyage would be analogous to the Vikings' daring exploit on steroids: another one-off sensation which I hope to live to see ... but not the colonizing effort that we'll require one or more space stations for.

Are you refering to a cycling space ship? In otherwords park a space station in orbit around the Sun. The orbit period is the period of a Mars Orbit mutiplied by the period of an Earth orbit, so that at a given point in the cycling orbit for each orbit, the space station is in the vicintity of Earth, and at another given point in its orbit for each orbit, it is in the vicintity of Mars. In this situation, a CEV or Orion is propelled onto an intercept course with the cycling space station and then docks with it, the astronauts then wait out the out bound leg of the journey in this cycling space station, and when it approaches Mars, the Mars Hab undocks and vears off the orbit towards a Mars encounter. The outbound cycling space station then head further out into the Solar System in its elliptical orbit. Another Cycling space station is placed in another cycling orbit, this one encounters Mars first, an Earth Return vehicle intercepts it, docks with the space station, and the astronauts live onboard it until it approaches Earth, then it undocks the CEV and the CEV veers off to intercept Earth for an atmospheric reentry.

So basically what your talking about is two space station orbiting the Sun, one for the out bound journey and one for the inbound journey.

Presumable one space station has a lander hab already on it and an empty docking port for the Orion to dock with and the other space station already has an Orion docked with it and has an empty docking port for the Earth Return Vehicle to dock with. There is a problem with this geometery. The outboud space station ends up with an Orion CEV that doesn't get used again attached to itself, and the other space station ends up with an Earth Return Vehicle that has nowhere to go.

Alternatively you can use just one space station. that space station performs double duty. First it takes astronauts on the outbound leg with Hab. The Hab undocks and an Earth Return vehicle docks with it carrying the previous mission's astronaut back to Earth in a long about orbit that first carrys them further away from the Sun, then around then Sun toward Perihelion, and then climbs back away from the Sun toward Earth,where the Astronauts undock the CEV the previous crew left for them and veers off to an intercept course with Earth. With this mission Profile, each astronaut group spends as much time in space as they do on Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2006-08-11 15:54:00

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#252 2006-08-21 20:07:12

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#253 2006-10-09 18:32:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#254 2006-10-11 19:57:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#255 2006-10-12 10:51:49

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#256 2006-10-12 11:23:20

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#257 2006-10-12 12:11:41

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#258 2006-10-12 15:49:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#259 2006-10-12 16:53:45

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#260 2006-10-12 19:59:11

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#261 2006-10-12 20:03:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#262 2006-10-12 21:53:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#263 2006-10-13 06:28:16

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#264 2006-10-13 07:10:07

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#265 2006-10-13 20:25:53

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#266 2006-10-14 05:11:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#267 2006-10-14 11:01:50

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#268 2006-10-14 14:35:34

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#269 2006-10-14 14:43:52

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#270 2006-10-14 14:50:53

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#271 2006-10-14 15:07:26

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#272 2006-10-14 18:50:19

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#273 2006-10-14 19:43:45

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#274 2006-10-14 20:50:12

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#275 2006-10-15 08:28:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer