When ISS Alpha has been built as much as it is going to be built, there
may arise a discussion as to what the "next big thing" in human
spaceflight should be for NASA. The public seems enthralled with Mars,
so probably that's what's going to happen whether we at ssi_list like it
or not. But I was speculating as to what else might be done in the
post-ISS period.
Alpha components. After all, a lot of money was spent developing ISS, and
so it is appropos that we should consider whether or not any of that
pricey hardware could readily be adapted to other purposes.
One possibility I thought about was to build another space station in
Earth orbit from modified ISS components, and then send it to a NEO with
minimal crew. Go to the NEO, plant a flag, take pictures, gather some
rocks, come home. Clearly, we have the know-how to build space stations
in earth orbit, and we also know how to keep people alive for extended
periods in such space stations. Could we send an ISS derivative from
here to a NEO and back again?
For such a trip one would need to develop a propulsion module to lift the
ISS derivative out of LEO and send it to the NEO. This is a major piece
of new hardware that would need to be built. And one would also need to
develop a storm shelter module in which the crew could hide during a
coronal mass ejection. And one would need to consider how to propel the
package back from the NEO to Earth orbit. So there's a lot that wouldn't
be part of the base ISS package. But, there's sure a lot of engineering
that went into ISS; I would hope we'ed at least entertain the idea of
reusing or adapting that to other uses.
Perhaps ISS is so specialized to its current task that attempting to adapt
it for travel to a NEO would be equivalent to adapting a hammer to be a
toothbrush (that would be difficult). What do you think? Doable, or
impossible?
Ron
Did we not get a clue from the skylab and MIR...after a few years the space
particles etc. stresses and strains and updates made it pass the useful
lifespan. When the last component of the SSI is put in place the first
segments will probably be near retirement age.
engineered absolesence
> When ISS Alpha has been built as much as it is going to be built, there
> may arise a discussion as to what the "next big thing" in human
> spaceflight should be for NASA. The public seems enthralled with Mars,
The "space fan community" (or at least the Mars zealot part) is
enthralled with Mars. The public couldn't give a damn.
>
> so probably that's what's going to happen whether we at ssi_list like it
> or not. But I was speculating as to what else might be done in the
> post-ISS period.
>
> One concept I thought about was attempting to reuse and/or build upon ISS
> Alpha components. After all, a lot of money was spent developing ISS,
> and
> so it is appropos that we should consider whether or not any of that
> pricey hardware could readily be adapted to other purposes.
We could use it as an example of the follies that a dysfunctional NASA
has sunk to.
>
> One possibility I thought about was to build another space station in
> Earth orbit from modified ISS components, and then send it to a NEO with
> minimal crew. Go to the NEO, plant a flag, take pictures, gather some
> rocks, come home. Clearly, we have the know-how to build space stations
> in earth orbit, and we also know how to keep people alive for extended
> periods in such space stations. Could we send an ISS derivative from
> here to a NEO and back again?
That actually sounds interesting.
We could even bill it as humanity's first step in dealing with asteroids
hitting the earth. That's something the public is actually interested
in. (See Tom Matula's stuff).
>
> For such a trip one would need to develop a propulsion module to lift the
> ISS derivative out of LEO and send it to the NEO. This is a major piece
> of new hardware that would need to be built. And one would also
> need to
> develop a storm shelter module in which the crew could hide during a
> coronal mass ejection. And one would need to consider how to propel the
> package back from the NEO to Earth orbit. So there's a lot that
> wouldn't
> be part of the base ISS package. But, there's sure a lot of engineering
> that went into ISS; I would hope we'ed at least entertain the idea of
> reusing or adapting that to other uses.
>
> Perhaps ISS is so specialized to its current task that attempting to
> adapt
> it for travel to a NEO would be equivalent to adapting a hammer to be a
> toothbrush (that would be difficult). What do you think? Doable, or
> impossible?
Current engineers?
I think we could learn something from the ISS. Besides using it as an
example of the depths to which NASA has sunk.
Best,
Chuck Divine
I do not think of the ISS as a total wasted effort. I
think that by developing a space plane which could
manuever around and explore different objects near
earth, it could be a great boon. Of course, the space
plane would have to have a range for it to be able to
go beyond LEO and possibly go as far as the moon.
space plane. If the ISS could be seen as a docking
station for vehicles to launch from that did not have
to worry about launching through earth's atmosphere,
its potential could be realized.
Heck, you could even put together a couple of
different planes with various propulsion systems: use
ion engines for slower moving automated explorers
which could land on asteroids and return to the
station with samples. These miners would be totally
reusable. Solar sails to explore and photograph
passing objects.
The fact that these satellites could return to the ISS
for repairs would vastly improve the lifetime of these
probes.
As for the fascination with Mars, NASA suggested a
plan prior to the world space conference in which a
base would be built at earth-moon L1 and used as a
platform for exploring the moon and mars.
For a refresher on the plan, see
http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
"
As for the fascination with Mars, NASA suggested a
plan prior to the world space conference in which a
base would be built at earth-moon L1 and used as a
platform for exploring the moon and mars.
"
it scares me. They'd be building yet another ship in the middle of the
desert, nowhere near (near in the energy sense) a resource supply. Either
we should go to the Moon --- Malapert Mountain's my suggestion --- or go
to a NEO, but we shouldn't go building space stations in the middle of
nowhere at this point in time. We need to start utilizing
extraterrestrial resources.
Ron
>
>Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:01:04 -0500
>
>>When ISS Alpha has been built as much as it is going to be built, there
>>may arise a discussion as to what the "next big thing" in human
>>spaceflight should be for NASA. The public seems enthralled with Mars,
>>
>It's not.
>
>The "space fan community" (or at least the Mars zealot part) is
>enthralled with Mars. The public couldn't give a damn.
>
Right.
heard from the the late Gen Dan o'Graham, which went something like this:
"(sorta quote) When you tell the Congress that we should go to Mars for
the thrill of it all, they all nod their heads like a tree full of owls
and say 'that's a great idea'. Then you tell them how much it's gonna
cost, and they all say, 'no way'."
> When ISS Alpha has been built as much as it is going to be built, there
> may arise a discussion as to what the "next big thing" in human
> spaceflight should be for NASA. The public seems enthralled with Mars,
> so probably that's what's going to happen whether we at ssi_list like it
> or not. But I was speculating as to what else might be done in the
> post-ISS period.
> Alpha components. After all, a lot of money was spent developing ISS, and
> so it is appropos that we should consider whether or not any of that
> pricey hardware could readily be adapted to other purposes.
> One possibility I thought about was to build another space station in
> Earth orbit from modified ISS components, and then send it to a NEO with
> minimal crew.
Quite ambitious. But I was wondering if a second space station could be built by a private company or a consortium of such. Not as big as the ISS, at least not as a prerequisite for starting to turn a profit.
Now there have been paying passengers on Soyuz flights to the ISS. I was wondering if there are enough millionaires like Tito and Shuttleworth to economically merit the launch (by Proton) of something resembling a Mir core module, and then Soyuz flights with each one pilot and two paying passengers. And perhaps making it accessible to the very fortunate ones among the general public by a lottery, the profits of which could either go into some charity or other, or into development of eg. a cheaper launch system. Would such a tourist facility be too expensive or considered too dangerous? Or would it run into too much opposition from the national space agencies?
Another idea is an orbital garage. Bigger launchers have been built for the purpose of launching bigger satellites into Clarke orbit. Two thirds of the mass lifted into LEO is the upper stage taking the actual payload into Clarke. Now I wonder if it could be feasible to use some sort of orbital garage to assemble satellites launched in smaller pieces, and then fitting them to a reusable upper stage. Such a facility could develop its skills, perhaps until it could use the discarded upper stages of the launchers to build satellite parts from.
Presumably it would be too expensive. But very probably such a facility would be a very useful stepping-stone to the full industrialization of space. We want, in the end, to be able to mine the Moon or asteroids and from the ore refine metals, ceramics and glass from which to build things like space colonies and powersats. The ability to "mine" the already pure metal of discarded upper stages and produce beams and perhaps parabolic radio antennae as satellite parts would be a nice step on the way.
Jon L. Beck.
Whats this nonsense about bringing the second station BACK from an
asteroid?
asteroid!
Colin Keizer
*good* = water plus carbon and other consumables.
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:12:22 -0500
>
>
> One possibility I thought about was to build another space station in
> Earth orbit from modified ISS components, and then send it to
> a NEO with minimal crew. Go to the NEO, plant a flag, take pictures,
> gather some rocks, come home. Clearly, we have the know-how to build
> space stations in earth orbit, and we also know how to keep people
alive for
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:06:50 +0100
>
> Now there have been paying passengers on Soyuz flights to the ISS. I was wondering if there are enough millionaires like Tito and Shuttleworth to economically merit the launch (by Proton) of something resembling a Mir core module, and then Soyuz flights with each one pilot and two paying passengers. And perhaps making it accessible to the very fortunate ones among the general public by a lottery, the profits of which could either go into some charity or other, or into development of eg. a cheaper launch system. Would such a tourist facility be too expensive or considered too dangerous? Or would it run into too much opposition from the national space agencies?
NASA and the Europeans fought tooth and nail to prevent the tourist flights to ISS. They want a government monopoly on spaceflight. The primary purpose for ISS is to give government space agencies a reason for existing, and they will do everything they can to ensure their survival.
The space tourist market could expand considerably once government resistance is eliminated. A lottery is not necessary, there is no shortage of fare paying passengers. And there is more than enough private capital available to finance such an effort, if the conditions were right. But today, the conditions are not right.
> NASA and the Europeans fought tooth and nail to prevent the tourist flights to ISS.
> They want a government monopoly on spaceflight.
[...]
But the Russians won in the Tito case. What would happen if someone went to Russia and ignored the Commies in the West? Would the western countries force the Russians to give it up? And with what public arguments? If investor John $ Cash goes to Russia with a large enough wad of money, and the Russians say yes, and if Mr. Cash goes to all the media, stating precisely what he wants, I can hardly see the Western governments telling the media: "We will not permit Mr. Cash and the Russians to do this, because we want to retain our monopoly".
I think that to
"leave the station there, and start mining the asteroid!"
would indeed be a preferable alternative, but that would take a lot more
cash than simply sending a mission there-and-back-again. My original
musings were on what NASA might do in human spaceflight in the post-ISS
Alpha era. If we assume that NASA is going to have virtually limitless
cash, then sure, go ahead and start mining those asteroids and the Moon
also. I predict that that NASA will have considerably less cash than
that. I think also that NASA will feel compelled to keep sending humans
into space because having humans in space is perceived as popular with the
US public. So my question is, "What could we suggest to NASA as the next
endeavor for humans in space, an endeavor that would fit within a budget
no greater than what we've spent on ISS?" My thought was to somehow
reuse/adapt ISS components and send them to a NEO.
robotics in space, and these would provide much greater bang for the buck
than human missions. But if NASA is going to continue to send humans
into space, then what types of missions should we at ssi_list encourage
NASA to undertake, given the foreseeable available dollars for such
ventures?]
Ron
"Colin Keizer" Colin_Keizer@...
11/12/02 09:48 PM
Whats this nonsense about bringing the second station BACK from an
asteroid?
Pick a *good* one, leave the station there, and start mining the
asteroid!
Colin Keizer
*good* = water plus carbon and other consumables.
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:12:22 -0500
>
>
> One possibility I thought about was to build another space station in
> Earth orbit from modified ISS components, and then send it to
> a NEO with minimal crew. Go to the NEO, plant a flag, take pictures,
> gather some rocks, come home. Clearly, we have the know-how to build
> space stations in earth orbit, and we also know how to keep people
alive for