The space station is going to happen. The money is being spent. The
worst thing that could happen would be to go 95 percent of the way there
and then stop.
about that it will provide a facility on orbit to develop, test and
construct all the things this list talks about. From orbital power
facilities to all the things on Ron's list. Ultimately humans need an on
orbit platform/facitity to implement. Some thoughts...
> * Find ALL NEAs larger than 100 m in diameter
Develop smaller orbital telescopes, designed specifically for maping
NEAs. (After all you don't need a big gun like Hubble). Case the pieces
to survive launch on the shuttle. Assembled and place on orbit from ISS,
maybe using a tether ....
> * Robotically explore 50 NEAs
Develop small robotic spacecraft that can be assembled and placed on
orbit from ISS (again perhaps using a tether ....
> * Explore the Lunar poles robotically for ice presence and extractability
Assemle more small robotic spacecraft that can be assembled and placed
on orbit from ISS ....
> * Explore the Lunar surface for caves, ore concentrations, and other sites
> of future industrial interest
Use ISS as a hub for an assembly facility for larger vessles that could
take us back to the moon...
> ... power beaming technology development
In conjunction with ground based facilities, assemble, place on orbit
the test technology necessary to make beamed power a reality ....
Im sure you all can punch holes in all these ideas. I can myself. But
the more important issue is adjusting our thinking about the ISS. It can
be a great on orbit multi-use facility to accomplish a hole spectrum of projects.
Once a complete facility is in place, we can start developing ways to
apply it. Just think about how computers used to be the big thing for
word processing and not much more. Now what can't you do with them.
That baby is going up there. It can be a white elephant or we can figure
out how to get the most out of it. Our choice ...
>
> Again, the question is simply one of opportunity cost. ISS will
> eventually cost, I think, $60 billion. Perhaps there will be extensive
> interest in it, perhaps not. Perhaps there will be some good experimental
> results that come out of it, too.
>
> But that $60 billion could have been used instead for
> * Find ALL NEAs larger than 100 m in diameter
> * Robotically explore 50 NEAs
> * Explore the Lunar poles robotically for ice presence and extractability
> * Explore the Lunar surface for caves, ore concentrations, and other sites
> of future industrial interest
> * etc., etc.
>
> The specific items I've listed so far wouldn't even have come close to
> adding up to $60 billion. But they would have done a heck of a lot more
> for speeding our transition to a spacefaring society than ISS can ever hope
> to do.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> > The station ISS should be cancelled, or transfered to private
> > ownership.
> > As it stands today, with NASA running it, ISS is the biggest obstacle to
> > space development today.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree with this statement. Sure, NASA is a
> bureaucratic nightmare and has...interesting... priorities, but let's face
> it. The ISS has gotten people interested in space again. Not just pretty
> pictures from the Hubble telescope, but people living and working right in
> our own backyard (cosmicly speaking). Revitalizing the public's interest
> can't be a bad thing, can it?
>
> --Justin
>
Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com
Space-based telescopes sufficient to find thousands of NEAs could be
economically launched from Delta 2-class rockets. Trying to use the
Shuttle/ISS and assemble them in space would be a much more costly
alternative. For the cost of one Shuttle launch, we could probably get
two or three space-based NEA hunter telescopes emplaced. The same
comments hold true for robotic explorers of NEAs --- remember that NEAR
Shoemaker was $223 million soup to nuts, half the cost of a Shuttle launch.
Robin Chew2
07/25/01 01:51
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list
The space station is going to happen. The money is being spent. The
worst thing that could happen would be to go 95 percent of the way there
and then stop.
It looks to me like alot of people don't buy the rational for ISS. How
about that it will provide a facility on orbit to develop, test and
construct all the things this list talks about. From orbital power
facilities to all the things on Ron's list. Ultimately humans need an on
orbit platform/facitity to implement. Some thoughts...
> * Find ALL NEAs larger than 100 m in diameter
Develop smaller orbital telescopes, designed specifically for maping
NEAs. (After all you don't need a big gun like Hubble). Case the pieces
to survive launch on the shuttle. Assembled and place on orbit from ISS,
maybe using a tether ....
> * Robotically explore 50 NEAs
Develop small robotic spacecraft that can be assembled and placed on
orbit from ISS (again perhaps using a tether ....
> * Explore the Lunar poles robotically for ice presence and extractability
Assemle more small robotic spacecraft that can be assembled and placed
on orbit from ISS ....
> * Explore the Lunar surface for caves, ore concentrations, and other
sites
> of future industrial interest
Use ISS as a hub for an assembly facility for larger vessles that could
take us back to the moon...
> ... power beaming technology development
In conjunction with ground based facilities, assemble, place on orbit
the test technology necessary to make beamed power a reality ....
Im sure you all can punch holes in all these ideas. I can myself. But
the more important issue is adjusting our thinking about the ISS. It can
be a great on orbit multi-use facility to accomplish a hole spectrum of
projects.
Once a complete facility is in place, we can start developing ways to
apply it. Just think about how computers used to be the big thing for
word processing and not much more. Now what can't you do with them.
That baby is going up there. It can be a white elephant or we can figure
out how to get the most out of it. Our choice ...
>
> Again, the question is simply one of opportunity cost. ISS will
> eventually cost, I think, $60 billion. Perhaps there will be extensive
> interest in it, perhaps not. Perhaps there will be some good
experimental
> results that come out of it, too.
>
> But that $60 billion could have been used instead for
> * Find ALL NEAs larger than 100 m in diameter
> * Robotically explore 50 NEAs
> * Explore the Lunar poles robotically for ice presence and extractability
> * Explore the Lunar surface for caves, ore concentrations, and other
sites
> of future industrial interest
> * etc., etc.
>
> The specific items I've listed so far wouldn't even have come close to
> adding up to $60 billion. But they would have done a heck of a lot more
> for speeding our transition to a spacefaring society than ISS can ever
hope
> to do.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> > The station ISS should be cancelled, or transfered to private
> > ownership.
> > As it stands today, with NASA running it, ISS is the biggest obstacle
to
> > space development today.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree with this statement. Sure, NASA is a
> bureaucratic nightmare and has...interesting... priorities, but let's
face
> it. The ISS has gotten people interested in space again. Not just
pretty
> pictures from the Hubble telescope, but people living and working right
in
> our own backyard (cosmicly speaking). Revitalizing the public's interest
> can't be a bad thing, can it?
>
> --Justin
>
Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com
>
> Space-based telescopes sufficient to find thousands of NEAs could be
> economically launched from Delta 2-class rockets. Trying to use the
> Shuttle/ISS and assemble them in space would be a much more costly
> alternative. For the cost of one Shuttle launch, we could probably get
> two or three space-based NEA hunter telescopes emplaced. The same
> comments hold true for robotic explorers of NEAs --- remember that NEAR
> Shoemaker was $223 million soup to nuts, half the cost of a Shuttle launch.
>
> Ron Menich
up to the ISS without the use of a Space Shuttle. By all means, let's use
big dumb boosters to get our payloads off the ground, but that doesn't
mean we can't use the ISS once we're up there. Or would the equipment to
be able to dock with ISS be too expensive? How much does a Soyuz launch
cost? Are the Space Shuttle and Soyuz craft the only ones that can dock
with ISS?
--Justin
>
> It looks to me like alot of people don't buy the rational for ISS. How
> about that it will provide a facility on orbit to develop, test and
> construct all the things this list talks about. From orbital power
> facilities to all the things on Ron's list. Ultimately humans need an on
> orbit platform/facitity to implement. Some thoughts...
>
ISS is limited to a three person crew. It takes 2.5 people to operate ISS. This leaves 0.5 of a person available to do experiments.
That assumes everything runs smoothly, and the experimenter never gets diverted to fix unforseen problems.
> Do we need to tie use of the ISS to use of the Space Shuttle? Tito went
>
> up to the ISS without the use of a Space Shuttle. By all means, let's use
> big dumb boosters to get our payloads off the ground, > but that doesn't
Which BDBs would you be referring to ? I do not believe any exist.
> mean we can't use the ISS once we're up there. Or would the equipment to
NASA discourages visitors to ISS, that is a primary reason why I am opposed to the whole thing. They will not let you do what you want to do.
>Are the Space Shuttle and Soyuz craft the only ones that can dock
> with ISS?
>
Currently yes.
> ISS is limited to a three person crew. It takes 2.5 people to
> operate ISS. This leaves 0.5 of a person available to do
> experiments.
design absurdity. It's like building a boat that can only carry
the driver and no cargo or passengers. Basically we are talking
about a pleasure craft. This is so laughable that I find it
incredible to believe. Surely this is not true. If it is true,
surely it will not stay this way.
Factual references anyone?
Chris.
>
> > ISS is limited to a three person crew. It takes 2.5 people to
> > operate ISS. This leaves 0.5 of a person available to do
> > experiments.
>
> Factual references anyone?
>
> Chris.
>
Sad but true. Remember that bureaucratic nightmare I was mentioning? Due
to budget overruns, the budget has been cut such that they are not going
to build and send up the required habitation module that would allow more
than 3 astronauts on board at the same time. Well, I guess a fourth can
fit, but only in 'tourist' capacity. Here's an old link to the story:
Personally, I think that once people realize what a colossal waste the ISS
is without the habitation module, it will end up being built and attached
anyway, but I should never expect the government to be rational.
--Justin
> Due to budget overruns, the budget has been cut such that they are not going
> to build and send up the required habitation module that would allow more
> than 3 astronauts on board at the same time....
ever heard of, from the Panama Canal to just about every military or
civilian aerospace technology, have gone over budget. How the heck are
we supposed to know how much something we've never done before is going
to cost. All budgets are conjecture.
> Personally, I think that once people realize what a colossal waste the ISS
> is without the habitation module, it will end up being built and attached
> anyway ....
I hope so.
> .... but I should never expect the government to be rational.
One must hope people of good will raise enough hell to make it so.
Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com
Why would one NOT expect cost overruns. Every large scale program I have
ever heard of, from the Panama Canal to just about every military or
civilian aerospace technology, have gone over budget. How the heck are
we supposed to know how much something we've never done before is going
to cost. All budgets are conjecture. All true, but the way NASA forms contracts, it becomes in the best financial interests of the contractor for there to be cost overruns and schedule slippages. If I could make one reform at NASA, it would be the elimination of cost-plus contracting.
Mike Combs
>>>It looks to me like alot of people don't buy the rational for ISS. How
about that it will provide a facility on orbit to develop, test and
construct all the things this list talks about. From orbital power
facilities to all the things on Ron's list. Ultimately humans need an on
orbit platform/facitity to implement. Some thoughts...>>>
know they must be doing something wrong. There's just nothing in a
spacecraft airlock that can justify that amount of money. $10 million would
have been too much. $2 million is more like it.
As for BDB's, it should be remembered that there are BDB's on the drawing
board that could have been used to launch the ISS in one piece. There would
have been no need for dozens of expensive shuttle flights or several,
expensive, individually designed airlocks, individually designed modules
with their own air recycling systems, etc. Something like a modern Sea
Dragon could have fired the thing up there, in one shot. True, you would
have to pay for the development of the Sea Dragon, but even in a worst case
scenario, we are talking several billions, not sixty. The ISS could have
been carefully assembled in a clean environment with excellent quality
control. The Sea Dragons could be built by the dozen in regular shipyards.
Each one would cost about the same amount as 1 shuttle launch, but would
have a payload capacity 25 times as large.
When all is said and done, there is nothing to justify the $60billion
price tag of ISS. $10billion would be more realistic. It is nothing more
than a NASA inspired trick, to prop up the space shuttle and US aerospace
industries.
Tony
Sign up for FREE and learn how to use your computer to create multiple
income streams, from the comfort of your own home.
The REALITY is that the darn thing is going up as is, as poorly
conceived as that might be. Rather than say what should have been done,
we all start talking about how to get the most out of what has been
done. We need to stop looking backward and lamenting that this or that
is wrong from our point of view. Start thinking about how to get the
most out of what IS.
with your congresspeople and the white house. Give them ideas on how to
make the program work based on what exists today. If they receive a
message that says trash the whole thing and start over, then they are
going to file your message in the trashcan. If you start demanding that
they maximise what money has been invested in ISS and include
suggestions on HOW, then you may get listened to.
>
> When it costs $140 million just to design and build the front door, you
> know they must be doing something wrong. There's just nothing in a
> spacecraft airlock that can justify that amount of money. $10 million would
> have been too much. $2 million is more like it.
>
> As for BDB's, it should be remembered that there are BDB's on the drawing
> board that could have been used to launch the ISS in one piece. There would
> have been no need for dozens of expensive shuttle flights or several,
> expensive, individually designed airlocks, individually designed modules
> with their own air recycling systems, etc. Something like a modern Sea
> Dragon could have fired the thing up there, in one shot. True, you would
> have to pay for the development of the Sea Dragon, but even in a worst case
> scenario, we are talking several billions, not sixty. The ISS could have
> been carefully assembled in a clean environment with excellent quality
> control. The Sea Dragons could be built by the dozen in regular shipyards.
> Each one would cost about the same amount as 1 shuttle launch, but would
> have a payload capacity 25 times as large.
>
> When all is said and done, there is nothing to justify the $60billion
> price tag of ISS. $10billion would be more realistic. It is nothing more
> than a NASA inspired trick, to prop up the space shuttle and US aerospace
> industries.
Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com
SSI is an organization focused on the utilization of extra-terrestrial
resources (a.k.a., "living off the land"). How specifically does ISS
help achieve any of SSI's goals?
07/26/01 11:42
AM
Please respond
to ssi_list
The REALITY is that the darn thing is going up as is, as poorly
conceived as that might be. Rather than say what should have been done,
we all start talking about how to get the most out of what has been
done. We need to stop looking backward and lamenting that this or that
is wrong from our point of view. Start thinking about how to get the
most out of what IS.
If you don't like how the program is managed then start raising hell
with your congresspeople and the white house. Give them ideas on how to
make the program work based on what exists today. If they receive a
message that says trash the whole thing and start over, then they are
going to file your message in the trashcan. If you start demanding that
they maximise what money has been invested in ISS and include
suggestions on HOW, then you may get listened to.
>
> When it costs $140 million just to design and build the front door, you
> know they must be doing something wrong. There's just nothing in a
> spacecraft airlock that can justify that amount of money. $10 million
would
> have been too much. $2 million is more like it.
>
> As for BDB's, it should be remembered that there are BDB's on the
drawing
> board that could have been used to launch the ISS in one piece. There
would
> have been no need for dozens of expensive shuttle flights or several,
> expensive, individually designed airlocks, individually designed modules
> with their own air recycling systems, etc. Something like a modern Sea
> Dragon could have fired the thing up there, in one shot. True, you would
> have to pay for the development of the Sea Dragon, but even in a worst
case
> scenario, we are talking several billions, not sixty. The ISS could have
> been carefully assembled in a clean environment with excellent quality
> control. The Sea Dragons could be built by the dozen in regular
shipyards.
> Each one would cost about the same amount as 1 shuttle launch, but would
> have a payload capacity 25 times as large.
>
> When all is said and done, there is nothing to justify the $60billion
> price tag of ISS. $10billion would be more realistic. It is nothing more
> than a NASA inspired trick, to prop up the space shuttle and US aerospace
> industries.
Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com
>
> SSI is an organization focused on the utilization of extra-terrestrial
> resources (a.k.a., "living off the land"). How specifically does ISS
> help achieve any of SSI's goals?
land. Where are humans going to be living and working in space for the
next ten years or so? ... ISS. It will be a stepping stone to do all the
great things humans can do once we reach those extraterrestrial
resources. That's the reality as I see it.
I sure am open to realistic alternatives to ISS for getting an
operational facility on orbit in that time frame. The operative here is
"realistic," realistic being what is likely to happen, not just what you
or I want to happen. Speculation is great, but it has to start with the
existing circumstances and evolve from them.
Wouldn't a fully operation ISS provide a great R&D facility in orbit to
work on all the great ideas I've read in this list and on the SSI
website? If not, then why?
Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com
SSI is an organization focused on the utilization of extra-terrestrial
resources (a.k.a., "living off the land"). How specifically does ISS
help achieve any of SSI's goals? While agreeing with those who say we should try to figure out how to best make use of ISS since it's an accomplished fact, I also agree with you that ISS is very far removed from any of SSI's goals. I was once debating on Usenet on the subject of the advantages of orbital space as a location vs. planetary surfaces. One person said something to the effect that any previously perceived notion of advantages of being in orbit have been pretty much killed with our experience of the ISS. I made the points that the success or failure of ISS in no way at all reflected on the correctness of the High Frontier viewpoint, seeing as how ISS: is in too low an orbit to capitalize on constant availability of sunlight doesnot have a closed ecology doesnot spin for simulation of gravity is not equipped for industrial processing of ET materials was never configured as a transportation hub, and thus fails to capitalize on the advantage of being closer to the top of the gravity well I also made the point that if NASA was the one doing operations on other planetary surfaces, there was no reason to expect that to go any better than ISS has.
Mike Combs
I'll just reflect that question back to you. What types of experiments
should be done on ISS that are really impactful in achieving SSI's goals?
Robin Chew2
07/26/01 12:19
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list
>
> SSI is an organization focused on the utilization of extra-terrestrial
> resources (a.k.a., "living off the land"). How specifically does ISS
> help achieve any of SSI's goals?
Infrastructure. You need to get there first before you can live off the
land. Where are humans going to be living and working in space for the
next ten years or so? ... ISS. It will be a stepping stone to do all the
great things humans can do once we reach those extraterrestrial
resources. That's the reality as I see it.
I sure am open to realistic alternatives to ISS for getting an
operational facility on orbit in that time frame. The operative here is
"realistic," realistic being what is likely to happen, not just what you
or I want to happen. Speculation is great, but it has to start with the
existing circumstances and evolve from them.
Wouldn't a fully operation ISS provide a great R&D facility in orbit to
work on all the great ideas I've read in this list and on the SSI
website? If not, then why?
> The REALITY is that the darn thing is going up as is, as poorly
> conceived as that might be. Rather than say what should have been
done,
> we all start talking about how to get the most out of what has been
> done. We need to stop looking backward and lamenting that this or
that
> is wrong from our point of view. Start thinking about how to get the
> most out of what IS.
I agree. As a matter of fact, it would be worse to stop now. With
the ammount of equipment already on orbit and materials in the
pipeline, we should be talking about what the ISS could be use for.
In my perfect world, I'd put $1 billion into Suttle Derived HHLV, $1
billion into Wet Launched External Tank Habitats, and another $1
billion into an orbiter similar to the Crew Return Vehicle. Triple
(hell even quad) those costs for station equipment (life support,
station keeping, ect) and we'd have an orbital outpost with more
capabilities than ISS and much less cost. Plus, we have a launch
system much more in line with SSI (and other organizations) vision.
On the down side, we would have to discontinue STS and loose manned
orbital capability for 3-5 years (probably more) but we'd be better
in the long run.
This is a chance for us (and other organizations) to express
opinions on what direction research should take. IMHO, Alpha
(technically, it's not ISS anymore) should be researching enclosed
organic life support systems, raw materials refining, metal
fabrication and tool construction.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
>
> SSI is an organization focused on the utilization of extra-
terrestrial
> resources (a.k.a., "living off the land"). How specifically does
ISS
> help achieve any of SSI's goals?
can think of a plethra of experiments that would be usefull in
fulfilling SSI's goals. To name a few, raw materials handling, raw
materials processing, metal fabrication and construction, organic
life support suplimentation, microwave power transmission. All of
these are difficult, if not impossible, to simulate on the ground for
the environments that they will be used in.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
> It is a large, habitable volume in a microgravity environment. I
>can think of a plethra of experiments that would be usefull in
>fulfilling SSI's goals. To name a few, raw materials handling, raw
>materials processing, metal fabrication and construction, organic
>life support suplimentation, microwave power transmission. All of
>these are difficult, if not impossible, to simulate on the ground for
>the environments that they will be used in.
>
>king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
the name again anyway), ISS is designed inside out from what we need
for materials research and experimentation. Experiments are supposed
to fit in lockers inside of the modules. High temperature materials
processing needs to be done in vacuum away from the manned modules.
The whole materials processing question is how to make something
from raw materials in a weightless vacuum. A possible project would
be to take an external tank and remanufacture it into foamed support
beams and walls. Then do the same for a simulated NEO asteroid and
then a real asteroid The only reason for a station would be to act
as a storage area for things that could be reused.
ISS was really designed to be useable for experiments on the affects
of long term weightlessness on the human body. This assumes that
there is a reason why one would be more than marginally interested
is such a thing. All other experiments have to meet safety criteria
for being inside or near the habitat space. I personally expect
that there would be several spectacular explosions during materials
research. So probably not something that NASA would allow attached
to the ISS.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)
I shouldn't worry about the ISS. It's a dead end. It cannot really
grow, as it is funded with public money. Things that are funded like
that usually only grow linearly, whereas things funded on a commercial
footing grow exponentially.
funded say, to launch people to, (i.e. charge for the stay there). Even
partially funded would be a start.
Or some other scheme. It's not clear that ISS is very useful for
research anyway; but even if it is, say $5 million per week would
give ~$250 million a year which isn't to be sniffed at; even if only
1 person stays on average. That's good money; and could be siphoned
back into the pockets of NASAs favourite contractors.
-Ian.
>
>>The REALITY is that the darn thing is going up as is, as poorly
>>conceived as that might be. Rather than say what should have been
>>
> done,
>
>>we all start talking about how to get the most out of what has been
>>done. We need to stop looking backward and lamenting that this or
>>
> that
>
>>is wrong from our point of view. Start thinking about how to get the
>>most out of what IS.
>>
> I agree. As a matter of fact, it would be worse to stop now. With
> the ammount of equipment already on orbit and materials in the
> pipeline, we should be talking about what the ISS could be use for.
> In my perfect world, I'd put $1 billion into Suttle Derived HHLV, $1
> billion into Wet Launched External Tank Habitats, and another $1
> billion into an orbiter similar to the Crew Return Vehicle. Triple
> (hell even quad) those costs for station equipment (life support,
> station keeping, ect) and we'd have an orbital outpost with more
> capabilities than ISS and much less cost. Plus, we have a launch
> system much more in line with SSI (and other organizations) vision.
> On the down side, we would have to discontinue STS and loose manned
> orbital capability for 3-5 years (probably more) but we'd be better
> in the long run.
> This is a chance for us (and other organizations) to express
> opinions on what direction research should take. IMHO, Alpha
> (technically, it's not ISS anymore) should be researching enclosed
> organic life support systems, raw materials refining, metal
> fabrication and tool construction.
>
> king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
>
civilization?"
> ISS is limited to a three person crew. It takes 2.5 people to operate ISS.
I'm sure that isn't the case. Tito said there was plenty of room there.
If more supply rockets go to ISS, then I don't really see where the 3 person
limit comes from; I believe the limit is life support related in fact;
and there's plenty of power up there to run bigger life support systems
if need be.
civilization?"
>
> > ISS is limited to a three person crew. It takes 2.5 people to
operate ISS.
>
> > This leaves 0.5 of a person available to do experiments.
>
> I'm sure that isn't the case. Tito said there was plenty of room
there.
>
> If more supply rockets go to ISS, then I don't really see where the
3 person
>
> limit comes from; I believe the limit is life support related in
fact;
>
> and there's plenty of power up there to run bigger life support
systems
> if need be.
Sure, they may have room and ls support for a 4-5 man crew, but the
Soyuz only holds 3 people. If you've got an emergency, 1 or 2 people
are f**cked. You could send additional Soyuz, but then both craft
would have to be replaced every 6 months. Having the Crew Return
Craft is the big stumbling block to larger permanent crews.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
The Soyuz emergency rescue vehicle can only seat three. NASA wants
(wisely, I think) to limit the number of people to that which can be
quickly evacuated in the event of an emergency. It would be quite a scene
if there were 6 people up there and a bad fire occurred, but only three
could be evacuated...
days just maintaining the station, I don't know. I'd like to see a
breakdown of that maintenance work.
Ron Menich
Ian Woollard
ssi_list@...
07/26/01 07:43
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list
> ISS is limited to a three person crew. It takes 2.5 people to operate
ISS.
> This leaves 0.5 of a person available to do experiments.
I'm sure that isn't the case. Tito said there was plenty of room there.
If more supply rockets go to ISS, then I don't really see where the 3
person
limit comes from; I believe the limit is life support related in fact;
and there's plenty of power up there to run bigger life support systems
if need be.
civilization?"
> The Soyuz emergency rescue vehicle can only seat three. NASA wants
> (wisely, I think) to limit the number of people to that which can be
> quickly evacuated in the event of an emergency.
number of people that can be evacuated.
> Ron Menich
civilization?"
>>>Wouldn't a fully operation ISS provide a great R&D facility in orbit to
work on all the great ideas I've read in this list and on the SSI
website? If not, then why?>>>
this facility. If NASA begins to see SSI as a dangerous potential rival in
space science funding, then you might not get up there at all. On the other
hand, in 10 years time, NASA are going to be looking for anything that can
realistically justify the continued existence of ISS. This is not something
that they have to do right now.
But do we really need to conduct these experiments in space? Many useful
ISRU experiments can be conducted on Earth with lunar soil simulants These
tests would costs a few millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars,
rather than hundreds of millions needed for ISS based experiments. If zero
gravity is needed, then we could conceivably integrate our experiment into
a satellite, and launch it in a Soyuz rocket. Maybe we could modify a Soyuz
upper stage and build our own mini-station?
Tony
Sign up for FREE and learn how to use your computer to create multiple
income streams, from the comfort of your own home.
I'm actually pleased with the Administration with respect to this. Alpha
has had a big cost overrun, so accordingly their reining in the project and
trying to control costs. If they put up the habitation module and a
bigger crew rescue vehicle, that would mean they'd be spending yet more
money.
suboptimal alternatives.
Ron Menich
Ian Woollard
ssi_list@...
07/26/01 09:32
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list
> The Soyuz emergency rescue vehicle can only seat three. NASA wants
> (wisely, I think) to limit the number of people to that which can be
> quickly evacuated in the event of an emergency.
You might like to ask yourself why NASA would want to limit the
number of people that can be evacuated.
> Ron Menich
civilization?"
I just verified a previous statement I made about what type of experiments
the ISS was designed for. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/experiments/index.
html> lists experiments currently scheduled for ISS. I would schedule
the most important experiments first so that I could show how useful
my new facility is. There is not a single experiment that is not
biology related therefore space biology must be NASA's one and only
most important concern. SSI does have an interest in closed bio
systems but none of these experiments are related to such.
not enough seats in the excape module. The bus that takes the tourist
there hangs around and takes them back as the next bus pulls in.
The astronuts are reclassified as flight attendants and join a union.
Sounds like the ultimate in immersion vacations.
I don't see this as a negative for SSI because it makes it possible
for a perception that normal people can to into space and back.
Therefore it is not impossible to do common activites in space like
manufacturing.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)