The Purpose of the ISS?

clark · 2004-04-09 14:54:09

The US spends 20 billion on the military end of space. So, really, we do dwarf any other nation, and almost any combintation of nations you care to name, in terms of spending on space.

We are the leader here, and our current policies will at least try to ensure that for another generation.

Rxke · 2004-04-09 18:14:18

Russia is just plain broke - its economy is about the size of Belgium's.

Hey! I heard that!

ClarkThe US spends 20 billion on the military end of space. So, really, we do dwarf any other nation, and almost any combintation of nations you care to name, in terms of spending on space

yes, it looks like in the end, the US military will end up as one of the biggest players in the field...

Euler · 2004-04-09 20:44:38

It is too bad that the military has no interest in going anywhere outside of low Earth orbit.

SBird · 2004-04-09 21:24:23

Well, seeing as how the stuff they're being paid to blow up is on the ground, there's no particular reason for them to leave LEO.

Euler · 2004-04-09 22:12:44

Mabey we should send some terrorists Mars with weapons of mass destruction.

Euler · 2004-04-10 00:56:21

[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2496640]Space station a job for 3, NASA contends

bolbuyk · 2004-04-10 04:13:46

About comparison of space-flight: I think it's not only a fact of economic and/or technical capabilities but also a matter of choice. I have the strong idea that the ambitions of ESA are more related to commercial outweighing things and by NASA more related to military input (keep in mind that a substantial part of satelites is military). This is also the case for the former Sowjet-Union.

About the asians: I really ask myself how ambitious they are. Has Japan really the ambitions to do something 'big' in space? Also China I ask myself. I think their time will come. Three times the inhabitants of Europe and America, 3 times the number of engineers.....

Keep also in mind that ESA and Japan with human spaceflight liked it most to take a ride with Americans or Russians. For them, there no really need to build something to drive.

Palomar · 2004-04-10 09:53:03

*Here's something else you can do on the ISS:

"Little did Pettit know he might be about to solve experimentally one of most perplexing paradoxes surrounding the formation of planets."

[http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1236_1.asp]Make a planet in a plastic bag.

Also, the last line in the article is good humor.

--Cindy

P.S.: I saw another article, at space.com, wherein NASA is considering okaying "customers" aboard the ISS:

[http://www.space.com/news/tourists_nasa_040409.html]More "bangs" (pardon the pun regarding strange noises) for the buck :-\

You wouldn't get me on the ISS, but to each their own I guess...

Rxke · 2004-04-10 10:36:26

Military only interested in LEO? Hmmm... I'd think they'd love to have a base on the moon also... If only for bragging rights...

And about the short stints of the ESA astronauts: i think in that short period, they can do almost as much science as the 2 man crew does now in 6 months, not having to bother with the upkeep of ISS... The ESA people that go up have a very packed shedule, and do a lot of things in that short timespan, and they can 'use' their crewmembers as test-subject, too...

So ESA gets a lot of science back for relatively little money, compared to US/Russia... Just hitch a ride on someone else's ship, in exchange for some hardware... (Glovebox, the pressurised cargo-modules,...)

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-10 10:41:30

SOME science though, can't be done overnight... alot must be done over time, like crystal growth, which isn't very fast.

And there is still the problem that you can't get any signifigant masses of science gear to the station, nor get anything but suitcase-sized packages back without Shuttle.

dicktice · 2004-04-11 13:08:07

Have you ever seen a film crew arrive by air somewhere without any facilities? Suitcase by suitcase, that's how. By the time they get all their suitcase-sized pieces assembled, they have the significant equipment, however huge, they need to do the job.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-11 15:18:34

Space travel and science is a liiittle more complicated than filming on location. Trying to get real work done on any scale is just not going to happen on the ISS with a few hundred kilos of extra payload mass scrounged from a Progress launch or packages that won't fit through the little Soyuz hatch!

dicktice · 2004-04-12 18:38:46

My filmcrew example may have hurt your sense of scientific importance, but the work involved in getting set up is comparible. [I'm acquainted with the IMAX filming in orbit, and when the mission specialist had to call down to ask what to do when the film faild to feed because of "dishing" he was told to hammer it with a rubber mallet--and it worked.] What about the inflatable weightless workshop idea? Seems to me that multiple cargo launches of incremental components engineered for quick assemble and checkout, swimming around in breathable conditions would be a heck of a lot of fun!

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-12 19:16:31

Somthing like a TransHab lab module? I like TransHab construction, but it as with all pressurized space modules, you can't assemble them "incrimentally" from small launches; its unclear that even the ESA ATV could deliver an unfurnished one, and that would require extensive ISS docking port/node modification.

Then there is still the issue of getting science gear up there, which even if it can fit in suitcase sized chunks, you can't get very many of them up there at a time without more payload capacity (Progress 1-2 times a year, ESA ATV 9mo-1yr), and you can only get a few back a year via Soyuz.

Without Shuttle or some other means of getting serious masses of hardware, larger volumes of hardware and/or modules, and larger crew rotations then even if there were huge amounts of science to be done, we couldn't.

C M Edwards · 2004-04-13 07:57:59

[...] I like TransHab construction, but it as with all pressurized space modules, you can't assemble them "incrimentally" from small launches; its unclear that even the ESA ATV could deliver an unfurnished one, and that would require extensive ISS docking port/node modification.
Then there is still the issue of getting science gear up there, which even if it can fit in suitcase sized chunks, you can't get very many of them up there at a time without more payload capacity (Progress 1-2 times a year, ESA ATV 9mo-1yr), and you can only get a few back a year via Soyuz.

Hmm...

I know that all of this applies to the current ISS and Transhab designs, but it does raise questions.

Could a station or other orbital assembly craft be designed for assembly from small packages in LEO?

Is the three-storey Transhab really the smallest inflatable structure that can be used for human habitation? If not, can a smaller version fit on Zenit booster?

What gear (science and otherwise) can be designed to fit in suitcase-sized chunks? What can't?

What absolutely must arrive already assembled? What can be built on site if you can just get it in the docking port?

In short: How unfurnished is unfurnished?

SBird · 2004-04-13 10:30:51

Well, the Zenit SeaLaunch booster can loft about 15.8 MT to LEO. There's quite a bit that one could move up with that sort of cargo capacity. Isn't the TransHab about 8 MT? If so, one could almost loft 2 of those per launch cycle.

I've also heard rumbling about SeaLaunch looking at upgrading their cargo capacity in the near future. If so, we could be looking at Shuttle type launch capacity that comes in at about $100 million a launch.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-13 13:48:15

Say that a modified Zenit-IIISL can get about 15MT to an ISS orbit...

Then what?

You will still need a tug of some sort to get it from the upper stage to the station and actually dock. ISS will require modification if the cargo vehicle will dock to an MPLM/module port instead of a Soyuz/Progress/ATV port to handle larger payloads.

Then, how do you get stuff back down? You can't simply throw ISS science racks out the airlock, and there will be considerable need for downmass for everyday science activities. All those samples and equipment need somthing to ride in.

And who will run these experiments? You need more people than the Soyuz system can handle, and CEV probably won't be available (for long)... if the US wants to blow money on sending it to ISS... until the desired 2016 "end of involvement" date.

SBird · 2004-04-13 14:22:37

From a technical standpoint, I think you're being too pessimistic. The Zenit's got nearly the cargo capacity of an Arianne 5 and a cargo diameter of 3.9 meters. Just send up a metal can or transhab with the equipment in it. Have it dock onto an ISS expansion port and start running experiments. Plus, why do you have to bring massive amounts of material back to Earth? Most of the equipment can either stay at the station or be ballistically impanted reef material in the Pacific. The actual samples from the experiments will represent a tiny fraction of the initial mass that can easily come back on a crew return vehicle.

That said, I agree that the lack of sufficient crew makes this all moot. Also, the lack of any clear cut science objectives for the ISS also make this a wasted effort.

Bill White · 2004-04-13 14:50:10

The purpose of the ISS?

I just saw this quote:

"We will finish what we have started, we will meet our obligations to our fifteen international partners on this project," Bush said. Translation: "We've bought too much dog food to shoot the dog now."

Link: [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17059]http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17059

Another quote:

There are good reasons to want to do this. (return to the moon) In addition to providing homo sapiens with an insurance policy—a pan-planetary human species could survive terrestrial disasters, such as global warming or an asteroid impact, that could otherwise doom us—it would open up vast frontiers for exploration, habitation, and exploitation. Some of the more intriguing strategies for establishing a foothold on Mars call for sending explorers who, from the start, go there to stay: the growing Mars colony always keeps enough spacecraft on hand to serve as lifeboats if all or some of the settlers have to bail out, but the idea is to manufacture rocket fuel, grow crops, put down roots, and make a go of it. The moon is an excellent place to develop the technologies and skills required for such an effort. It's a harsh, airless world, to be sure—tougher than Mars in many respects—but as big as Africa and a lot cheaper to get to than Mars is.

clark · 2004-04-13 15:11:46

One more quote:

The question is one of acting sensibly in the short term while keeping our eyes on the potentialities of the future. Trying to plan today how to settle on Mars makes about as much sense as asking Columbus to come up with a way to bring water to Los Angeles.

dicktice · 2004-04-14 09:00:30

CGNR: Gosh, you can think up objections faster than any three or four of us are able to think up ways and means of getting up there and doing things in orbit. I'm impressed as hell--but what's your point? Unless it's because you don't have any good, do-able ideas to offer, which'll do the trick within the decade (there's that phrase with the nice ring to it).

SBird · 2004-04-14 10:47:12

Well, I'd argue that GCNRevenger is fufilling an important task - namely keeping the rest of us intellectually honest. If everyone is rah-rah about these ideas, it's easy to start thinking unrealistically. Occasinally, you need a naysayer on board, even if they aren't right all the time to force you to stop and think about your ideas to form a rebuttal. After all, as Nietzche said, "True courage is not in strength of convictions but rather the courage to question those convictions."

I used to work with a physicist that GCNR reminds me of. He was often relentlessly negative but I really appreciated having that around. I ended up learning most of the physics I know from hainging out with him and bouncing wacky ideas off of him and letting him shoot them down.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-14 17:46:25

Thanks, I think

One of the reasons I come down sounding like a grouch about the ISS and the Shuttle iiiisss that I really hate the ISS and Shuttle with the ~$150-200+Bn they have ate up with essentially nothing to show for it other than fixing HST and some little side trips... its inexcusable. It would be better in my opinion to forget the whole thing and do it right using Shuttle-C and TransHab style construction, possibly manned/supplied by a large CEV vehicle until SSTOs become available.

On a more positive note, as far as fixing the ISS today and get actual work done on it will require four things:

1: A space tug. Reuseable or expendable, whatever, with the ability to get stuff from the booster to dock with an ISS module port. It must dock with no aid of a robot arm, preferably without modifying ISS at all (remote control?), and could simply be an unmanned CEV/Klipper-Onega/Zarya stretched sans heat shield.

2: The Nasa CEV, RSA Klipper-Onega, or RSA Zarya-Onega plus some kind of habitation module (probably TransHab), which you really really need to have a signifigant crew, this isn't negotiable... ISS with only a crew or two or three is a non-starter.

3: An overhaul... the ISS may be structurally okay, but it will wind up a deathtrap like Mir before the CEV can be ready at this rate without signifigant improvement. I don't know if this can be done in orbit or not, or if swapping out the old Russian module(s) is practical.

4: Continued US comittment or other large infusion of capital to build Klipper/Onega... this one isn't looking good. It will require some big bucks from someplace.

These things can be done, but I don't see them happening without the US being onboard, which doesn't look to be in the ISS's future.

I sort of like the idea of the disposeable laboratory module, but I think that alot of the gear can be fit into an ISS rack, so you can populate the laboratory modules already planned for launch.

dicktice · 2004-04-14 18:33:15

By God, SBird--we did it: GCNR is off and running! Now we've got something substantial to chew on. Great stuff, but I'll need a little more time to think. . . .

Euler · 2004-04-14 18:39:37

2: The Nasa CEV, RSA Klipper-Onega, or RSA Zarya-Onega plus some kind of habitation module (probably TransHab), which you really really need to have a signifigant crew, this isn't negotiable... ISS with only a crew or two or three is a non-starter.

Transhab would be nice, but from what I have read it seems that it is not lack of space that is keeping the crew at 3, it is lack of escape vehicles.

4: Continued US comittment or other large infusion of capital to build Klipper/Onega... this one isn't looking good. It will require some big bucks from someplace.

I think that big Euros are more likely. Since the ESA does not have a manned space vehicle of it's own, it almost has to support Russia in order to get astronauts into orbit.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-04-09 14:54:09

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#27 2004-04-09 18:14:18

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#28 2004-04-09 20:44:38

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#29 2004-04-09 21:24:23

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#30 2004-04-09 22:12:44

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#31 2004-04-10 00:56:21

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#32 2004-04-10 04:13:46

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#33 2004-04-10 09:53:03

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#34 2004-04-10 10:36:26

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#35 2004-04-10 10:41:30

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#36 2004-04-11 13:08:07

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#37 2004-04-11 15:18:34

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#38 2004-04-12 18:38:46

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#39 2004-04-12 19:16:31

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#40 2004-04-13 07:57:59

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#41 2004-04-13 10:30:51

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#42 2004-04-13 13:48:15

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#43 2004-04-13 14:22:37

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#44 2004-04-13 14:50:10

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#45 2004-04-13 15:11:46

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#46 2004-04-14 09:00:30

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#47 2004-04-14 10:47:12

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#48 2004-04-14 17:46:25

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#49 2004-04-14 18:33:15

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

#50 2004-04-14 18:39:37

Re: The Purpose of the ISS?

Board footer